SIAP: McQuade drops whistleblower suit

[LaJolla Lion]

Seriously?

Yes, he is serious. These kids had it coming to them apparently. They all forced Jerry to get them alone and naked with them as children. They knew it would lead to a huge pay day a decade or so later. It was a master plan invented inside TSM by 10 year old kids who were ahead of the game. All you can do is shake your head at this nonsense, but people cheer him on. Blaming the victims which were kids for not knowing better. Wow, yet people get pissed when they same some of the PSU faithful lives in denial....well no sh!t some do, we see it here daily.

 

[coveydidnt]

Let me be clear, I think it is very risky behavoir to shower with an unrelated minor and I believe that Sandusky put himself in a very risky situation as evidenced by the verdicts in his trial. I believe that Sandusky was incredibly naive. That being said, the 1998 incident was thoroughly investigated and Sandusky was cleared. He heard that he was advised not to shower with v6 again and he didn't. Yes, I don't believe it is not that much of a stretch to think that Sandusky thought it was not a big deal for him to shower with AM, a boy he considered as family.

Please take a break & really sit back and take an honest look at the situation.

The whole premise of sexual intent being some kind of high bar to pass is a red herring, as Wendy points out.

With some honest reflection you would find that the behavior speaks for itself.

If you still struggle, try this experiment: just go down to you local police station and tell the duty officer that later that evening, you plan to take a 12 year old boy from your neighborhood to a deserted fitness center & take a nude shower with him. Be sure to add that you will be blowing raspberries below his belly button and will also grab him from behind & lift him up to show the boy how to rinse his hair. Emphasize that this is going to be just an experiment, and that there's no sexual intent.

When you get out of the mental institution where you will have been committed, report back to the board on what you've learned.
​

It's simply not possible for reasonable citizens to believe that there is any way that the behavior does not include sexual intent. It is incomprehensible.

 

[francofan]

Yes, he is serious. These kids had it coming to them apparently. They all forced Jerry to get them alone and naked with them as children. They knew it would lead to a huge pay day a decade or so later. It was a master plan invented inside TSM by 10 year old kids who were ahead of the game. All you can do is shake your head at this nonsense, but people cheer him on. Blaming the victims which were kids for not knowing better. Wow, yet people get pissed when they same some of the PSU faithful lives in denial....well no sh!t some do, we see it here daily.

You are not a dumb guy LaJolla. I don’t question your allegiance or motive. I am not questioning if you might be a troll like I think jive, covey, or peanut butter might be. It seems to me that your views are sincerely held. I just think you are in denial that there is a different view that can’t be dismissed out of hand that something stinks to high heaven and we aren’t going to be able to move on until we get to the bottom of it.

The view I have is that there was a political hit job and things aren’t what they seem to be. Why can’t anybody give a credible answer to the question of the SINGLE most credible piece of evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that demonstrates that Sandusky committed CSA. The silence in response to this question is deafening. It demonstrates to me that John Snedden is correct and his recommendation for a truly objective investigation to once and for all get a definitive view of just what exactly happened is sound.

 

[francofan]

Please take a break & really sit back and take an honest look at the situation.

The whole premise of sexual intent being some kind of high bar to pass is a red herring, as Wendy points out.

With some honest reflection you would find that the behavior speaks for itself.

If you still struggle, try this experiment: just go down to you local police station and tell the duty officer that later that evening, you plan to take a 12 year old boy from your neighborhood to a deserted fitness center & take a nude shower with him. Be sure to add that you will be blowing raspberries below his belly button and will also grab him from behind & lift him up to show the boy how to rinse his hair. Emphasize that this is going to be just an experiment, and that there's no sexual intent.

When you get out of the mental institution where you will have been committed, report back to the board on what you've learned.
​

It's simply not possible for reasonable citizens to believe that there is any way that the behavior does not include sexual intent. It is incomprehensible.

Covey - I believe you are a troll. I am going to stop responding to you until you answer the basic questions I have regarding your motivations.

What is your connection, if any, to Penn State?

Where are you coming from in terms of your strong support for the OAG and the old guard BOT?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You are not a dumb guy LaJolla. I don’t question your allegiance or motive. I am not questioning if you might be a troll like I think jive, covey, or peanut butter might be. It seems to me that your views are sincerely held. I just think you are in denial that there is a different view that can’t be dismissed out of hand that something stinks to high heaven and we aren’t going to be able to move on until we get to the bottom of it.

The view I have is that there was a political hit job and things aren’t what they seem to be. Why can’t anybody give a credible answer to the question of the SINGLE most credible piece of evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that demonstrates that Sandusky committed CSA. The silence in response to this question is deafening. It demonstrates to me that John Snedden is correct and his recommendation for a truly objective investigation to once and for all get a definitive view of just what exactly happened is sound.

You are in denial steve. The simple fact you stated that the kids should have known better shows you have lost all rational thought on this matter. Snedden did not investigate Jerry's crimes so no matter how many times you try and make him credible on this subject, he was not and has never investigated Jerry for sexual abuse. The NCIS background checks are not to find out if someone is a pedophile or not.

You cannot explain why Jerry HAD to shower with kids after being told not to. You don't want to explain it as you cannot come up with a rational reason why anyone in his shoes would put themselves in that situation. There is no good reason what so ever for him to be in any shower naked with kids after being told no to. He could have waited outside the locker room or shower, but he didn't. There isn't going to be some new investigation. Your unicorn isn't real and Jerry will DIE in jail and be known as one of the biggest serial pedophiles ever. You can't deal with that so you pretend it didn't happen and listen to ANYONE that will say anything remotely close to what you want to hear.

 

[francofan]

You are in denial steve. The simple fact you stated that the kids should have known better shows you have lost all rational thought on this matter. Snedden did not investigate Jerry's crimes so no matter how many times you try and make him credible on this subject, he was not and has never investigated Jerry for sexual abuse. The NCIS background checks are not to find out if someone is a pedophile or not.

You cannot explain why Jerry HAD to shower with kids after being told not to. You don't want to explain it as you cannot come up with a rational reason why anyone in his shoes would put themselves in that situation. There is no good reason what so ever for him to be in any shower naked with kids after being told no to. He could have waited outside the locker room or shower, but he didn't. There isn't going to be some new investigation. Your unicorn isn't real and Jerry will DIE in jail and be known as one of the biggest serial pedophiles ever. You can't deal with that so you pretend it didn't happen and listen to ANYONE that will say anything remotely close to what you want to hear.

I don't need to discuss this with you any more. The bottom line is:

1. I am of the opinion that John Snedden, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, Bob Costas, and Dr. Fred Berlin have a much better view on just what exactly happened in this story than do Ray Blehar and Jim Clemente.

2. The evidence that Sandusky engaged is CSA is not very strong as demonstrated by nobody being able to cite a SINGLE piece of credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that supports that view.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't need to discuss this with you any more. The bottom line is:

1. I am of the opinion that John Snedden, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, Bob Costas, and Dr. Fred Berlin have a much better view on just what exactly happened in this story than do Ray Blehar and Jim Clemente.

2. The evidence that Sandusky engaged is CSA is not very strong as demonstrated by nobody being able to cite a SINGLE piece of credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that supports that view.

LOL. Like I said you'll believe ANYONE saying anything remotely close to what you want to hear. The evidence was overwhleming that Jerry is a serial pedophile and you again DID NOT ANSWER WHY JERRY WAS IN THE SHOWER AGAIN with a child because you can't. There WAS NO GOOD REASON at all in any way shape or form. How many people you listed have stated they think Jerry is 100% innocent? There is a reason why some say it was a political hit job and it has NOTHING at all to do with Jerry being innocent as they all know better. You cannot explain why a man in his 50's had to get so many young boys ALONE over and over and over and over again. You don't want to deal with that reality as it means that you can't walk this back. Guess what Steve,,,,,it's not getting walked back. Put me on ignore as you can't deal with even the simple questions about Jerry. You visiting him in jail speaks volumes about where your priorities have always been.

 

[coveydidnt]

Covey - I believe you are a troll. I am going to stop responding to you until you answer the basic questions I have regarding your motivations.

What is your connection, if any, to Penn State?

Where are you coming from in terms of your strong support for the OAG and the old guard BOT?

This is moving goalposts - and it's a shame that you let Simon put you up to that.

I have been steadfastly not a troll and have not supported the OAG nor BOT. Not any of the BOT, including the dreadful single-issue A9. But I also don't support CSS. And I certainly don't appreciate people like Jeff & you defending Jerry - this fuels the story, the narrative that we at PSU are bad people & pedo-supporters.

You two or three have fueled that narrative for 6 years now, completely ignoring the work the Paterno's invested in - namely Clemente's important work. So fans from other schools see your posts and probably your garbage on social media, and you idiots continue to push this crap to news media also. It's no wonder that Schiano got screwed out of a job in Tenn - It's the fault of you & your ilk, pushing a narrative & continuing to excuse Jerry's behavior, and really doing your best to make it seem like there's some giant community of people who excuse it. There really are less than a handful, but you people damage our community with every post, and every action.

The Paterno's spent good money and had a strategy for messaging this (unfortunately this got put together a bit late). You claim to support Joe, his family, and our school and yet you spit in his face and dance on his grave every time you defend Jerry & bash victims. And you call me a troll?

PoS.

You visit Jerry in Prison. Why not stop by and visit Sue and see what she think's about what you've been doing?

 

[lyndj]

You are not a dumb guy LaJolla. I don’t question your allegiance or motive. I am not questioning if you might be a troll like I think jive, covey, or peanut butter might be. It seems to me that your views are sincerely held. I just think you are in denial that there is a different view that can’t be dismissed out of hand that something stinks to high heaven and we aren’t going to be able to move on until we get to the bottom of it.

The view I have is that there was a political hit job and things aren’t what they seem to be. Why can’t anybody give a credible answer to the question of the SINGLE most credible piece of evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that demonstrates that Sandusky committed CSA. The silence in response to this question is deafening. It demonstrates to me that John Snedden is correct and his recommendation for a truly objective investigation to once and for all get a definitive view of just what exactly happened is sound.

If you are told in 1998 that you're behavior is inappropriate at best and yet you continue that behavior intentionally, you are either sick or don't give a s&it and deserve whatever comes your way because of it.

 

[nits74]

LOL. Like I said you'll believe ANYONE saying anything remotely close to what you want to hear. The evidence was overwhleming that Jerry is a serial pedophile and you again DID NOT ANSWER WHY JERRY WAS IN THE SHOWER AGAIN with a child because you can't. There WAS NO GOOD REASON at all in any way shape or form. How many people you listed have stated they think Jerry is 100% innocent? There is a reason why some say it was a political hit job and it has NOTHING at all to do with Jerry being innocent as they all know better. You cannot explain why a man in his 50's had to get so many young boys ALONE over and over and over and over again. You don't want to deal with that reality as it means that you can't walk this back. Guess what Steve,,,,,it's not getting walked back. Put me on ignore as you can't deal with even the simple questions about Jerry. You visiting him in jail speaks volumes about where your priorities have always been.

As I've stated before, both of you guys make good points. Regarding Sandusky, I tend to come down on your side. That said, I'm not as certain as you and would like to see a more credible investigation.

 

[Mixolydian]

This is moving goalposts - and it's a shame that you let Simon put you up to that.

I have been steadfastly not a troll and have not supported the OAG nor BOT. Not any of the BOT, including the dreadful single-issue A9. But I also don't support CSS. And I certainly don't appreciate people like Jeff & you defending Jerry - this fuels the story, the narrative that we at PSU are bad people & pedo-supporters.

You two or three have fueled that narrative for 6 years now, completely ignoring the work the Paterno's invested in - namely Clemente's important work. So fans from other schools see your posts and probably your garbage on social media, and you idiots continue to push this crap to news media also. It's no wonder that Schiano got screwed out of a job in Tenn - It's the fault of you & your ilk, pushing a narrative & continuing to excuse Jerry's behavior, and really doing your best to make it seem like there's some giant community of people who excuse it. There really are less than a handful, but you people damage our community with every post, and every action.

The Paterno's spent good money and had a strategy for messaging this (unfortunately this got put together a bit late). You claim to support Joe, his family, and our school and yet you spit in his face and dance on his grave every time you defend Jerry & bash victims. And you call me a troll?

PoS.

You visit Jerry in Prison. Why not stop by and visit Sue and see what she think's about what you've been doing?

I agree that there was no logical explanation for Sandusky taking another shower with a kid after 1998 incident. I have some doubts about how far his CSA actually went, but I feel strongly that there is something wrong with him.

Having said that, the notion that the general public bases their opinion about Penn Staters based on what a few people say on this message board is complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks Penn Staters are “bad people” based on the Sandusky scandal are morons. I’m not surprised if that’s who you hang out with.

And the notion that what happened to Schiano has ANYTHING to do with posters on this message board is something only you could come up with. What happened to Schiano has EVERYTHING to do with their fan base not thinking he’s a good enough coach and using Mike McQueary’s (another true buffoon) double hearsay comments throwing Schiano under the bus as a plausible excuse to get out the pitchforks and torches.

Wake the phuck up.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

As I've stated before, both of you guys make good points. Regarding Sandusky, I tend to come down on your side. That said, I'm not as certain as you and would like to see a more credible investigation.

If something actually comes up credible that one is warranted, I'm all for it. Calling the victims liars or shaming them isn't one IMO. Maybe someday that credible piece comes forward or the victims all state they were tricked and Jerry never did a thing....but those odds seem pretty long right now.

 

[pandaczar12]

I agree that there was no logical explanation for Sandusky taking another shower with a kid after 1998 incident. I have some doubts about how far his CSA actually went, but I feel strongly that there is something wrong with him.

Having said that, the notion that the general public bases their opinion about Penn Staters based on what a few people say on this message board is complete nonsense. Anyone who thinks Penn Staters are “bad people” based on the Sandusky scandal are morons. I’m not surprised if that’s who you hang out with.

And the notion that what happened to Schiano has ANYTHING to do with posters on this message board is something only you could come up with. What happened to Schiano has EVERYTHING to do with their fan base not thinking he’s a good enough coach and using Mike McQueary’s (another true buffoon) double hearsay comments throwing Schiano under the bus as a plausible excuse to get out the pitchforks and torches.

Wake the phuck up.

As I've always said, there is simply no way to know what really happened. Some people are so damn sure of his guilt, others of his innocence. Both sides post repeatedly about how they feel, and it never accomplishes anything. It's certainly possible that he's a criminal mastermind that fooled everyone for decades. It's also possible he's a naive goof that grew up in a rec home that just couldn't fathom that people who he was helping would turn on him. Like most things in life the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But there simply isn't enough information to know for sure.

 

[Obliviax]

As I've always said, there is simply no way to know what really happened. Some people are so damn sure of his guilt, others of his innocence. Both sides post repeatedly about how they feel, and it never accomplishes anything. It's certainly possible that he's a criminal mastermind that fooled everyone for decades. It's also possible he's a naive goof that grew up in a rec home that just couldn't fathom that people who he was helping would turn on him. Like most things in life the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But there simply isn't enough information to know for sure.

This is reminiscent of the Weinstein backlash going on in Hollywood. Today, if you ever invited a gal to dinner and leaned in to get a kiss (and see if she is interested in reciprocating) you should be on the list of sexual predators. If accused, you are guilty...no ifs, ands or butts.

 

[Mixolydian]

This is reminiscent of the Weinstein backlash going on in Hollywood. Today, if you ever invited a gal to dinner and leaned in to get a kiss (and see if she is interested in reciprocating) you should be on the list of sexual predators. If accused, you are guilty...no ifs, ands or butts.

Butts?

 

[marshall23]

OGBOT, MM, Barron, Freeh and The current PSU President......cowards, liars or crooks?
None of the above? All of the above?

 

[Mixolydian]

OGBOT, MM, Barron, Freeh and The current PSU President......cowards, liars or crooks?
None of the above? All of the above?

OGBOT - Liars and crooks
MM - Coward and/or liar
Freeh - Liar and crook
Barron - Fat

 

[marshall23]

OGBOT - Liars and crooks
MM - Coward and/or liar
Freeh - Liar and crook
Barron - Fat

Barron is a coward.

 

[Mixolydian]

Barron is a coward.

Fine a fat coward

 

[LundyPSU]

Let me be clear, I think it is very risky behavoir to shower with an unrelated minor and I believe that Sandusky put himself in a very risky situation as evidenced by the verdicts in his trial. I believe that Sandusky was incredibly naive. That being said, the 1998 incident was thoroughly investigated and Sandusky was cleared. He heard that he was advised not to shower with v6 again and he didn't. Yes, I don't believe it is not that much of a stretch to think that Sandusky thought it was not a big deal for him to shower with AM, a boy he considered as family.

I could be open minded to consider him being naïve going into 1998. But after 1998, there is no excuse.

 

[canuckhal]

or the victims all state they were tricked and Jerry never did a thing....but those odds seem pretty long right now.

There are millions of reasons why that won't happen.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

There are millions of reasons why that won't happen.

Yeah, just keep saying it. It makes it true then I guess. Victim shaming 101, blame them. Good job.

 

[canuckhal]

Yeah, just keep saying it. It makes it true then I guess. Victim shaming 101, blame them. Good job.

That is quite the accusation in response to what you wrote. Not victim shaming at all. I didn't say they weren't victims. Victims received millions of dollars in compensation and assume that they signed some sort of confidentiality agreement limiting PSU and Second Mile liability and what they can say. With the exception of Matt, most have gone silent after settling, which is their prerogative. Why would anyone endanger millions of dollars by stating that they weren't abused when they said they were?

Although some said they weren't abused, and then visited Mike Gillum and Andrew Shubin, and then said they were when millions of dollars were on the table. I believe you say this is normal for male sex victims, so be it. Some might find that timeline rather questionable.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

That is quite the accusation in response to what you wrote. Not victim shaming at all. I didn't say they weren't victims. Victims received millions of dollars in compensation and assume that they signed some sort of confidentiality agreement limiting PSU and Second Mile liability and what they can say. With the exception of Matt, most have gone silent after settling, which is their prerogative. Why would anyone endanger millions of dollars by stating that they weren't abused when they said they were?

Although some said they weren't abused, and then visited Mike Gillum and Andrew Shubin, and then said they were when millions of dollars were on the table. I believe you say this is normal for male sex victims, so be it. Some might find that timeline rather questionable.

Look how many victims come our years later with abuse or even harassment. Not so rare but some want to pretend it is. Have at it.

 

[no1lion99]

I've been doing some digging and I have a couple questions related to the recent debate on whether the McQueary incident really happened on 2/9/2001.

Here's some items from the 2/9/2001 Collegian:

at p.2 - alternate routes to BJC for Bare Naked Ladies concert that night include University Drive and other routes from the west (The concert was scheduled to start at 8pm)

at p.12 - The Ice Lions Hockey team plays WVU at 9:15pm that night at the Greensberg Sports Complex. Their current record is 6-12-2.

at p.13 - The Icers Hockey team plays No.4 Ohio at 7:30pm that night. It is an away game. Their current record is 21-3-2 and were recently seeded #2 in the upcoming ACHA tournament (see p.9).

Question 1: What was the difference between the Icers and the Ice Lions? My understanding is the Icers were a varsity club team. But what were the Ice Lions & did many people watch their games?

Question 2: How many students would have attended the BNL concert and been inside the BJC between 8pm and 10pm? 5,000? 10,000? 15,000?

Question 3: The assumption on the board is that McQ thought it was the Friday before spring break because the campus was deserted. But I reviewed all of McQ's testimony on the date and spring break topic, and nowhere did I find a reference to him saying the campus was deserted. Where did that come from?

A1: As a graduate from that time frame (1999) the Icers were *the* hockey team. They were the only hockey team I knew of, and everyone knows they were AHCA/NAIA/Club level. In my years on campus I never heard of anything called the Ice Lions.

 

[coveydidnt]

A1: As a graduate from that time frame (1999) the Icers were *the* hockey team. They were the only hockey team I knew of, and everyone knows they were AHCA/NAIA/Club level. In my years on campus I never heard of anything called the Ice Lions.

Yet they exist ... American Collegiate Hockey Association Men's DII. It seems the club team never disbanded.

https://www.psuicelionshockey.com/

Doesn't anybody know how to google?

More:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_2a450bca-bc9b-58b5-a331-835a9ec72166.html

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_d6980566-eeda-54a1-96b3-be8772d04c5b.html

 

[pandaczar12]

Doesn't anybody know how to google?

Here, let me google that for you.

http://bfy.tw/FHIl

 

[PearlSUJam]

Yet they exist ... American Collegiate Hockey Association Men's DII. It seems the club team never disbanded.

https://www.psuicelionshockey.com/

Doesn't anybody know how to google?

More:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_2a450bca-bc9b-58b5-a331-835a9ec72166.html

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_d6980566-eeda-54a1-96b3-be8772d04c5b.html

Not that it matters, but go back and read @JmmyW post. It says the Icers and the Ice Lions played on the same day in different towns and had different records per the Collegian. The Icers were the ACHA club team back then. Maybe you should read posts thoroughly all mighty king of Google.

 

[L.T. Young]

You don't take an accuser at their word when there is ample evidence he's not telling the truth.

I don't have the time to specifically point out the many issues with the rest of your post. From the meandering off-topic points, to the multiple inaccuracies, to the lumping me in with some random group of "you guys". If you want to reply, please just stay on topic with the blue text above.

There’s literally nothing off topic.


“Why should he be believed over a university police report and all manner of common sense?”

Note the mention of the police report aka evidence.

“Sandusky showering alone with young boys was wrong. He was confronted about it in 98 by a mother and at least two grown men. He was told it was wrong and not to do it. He agreed he wouldn’t.”

Note the rundown of what’s in the police report and testimony about the incident. To deny it was common sense he knew he shouldn’t be showering alone with kids is intellectually dishonest.

“It’s laughable that you think he’s going to admit he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. You guys have been so focused on other things you’ve allowed a ridiculous fiction to become reality on this board.”

Note the reference to how ridiculous it is to expect that any guilty person is just going to admit something incriminating when given the option to lie.

And yes, you and a host of others are focused on making this all go away to change the way Joe is seen. That’s all that matters to you and quite a few others.

The fact Sandusky’s not being honest based on known facts isn’t important to you. All you’re focused on is arguing for Joe’s innocence.

 

[pandaczar12]

There’s literally nothing off topic.


“Why should he be believed over a university police report and all manner of common sense?”

Note the mention of the police report aka evidence.

“Sandusky showering alone with young boys was wrong. He was confronted about it in 98 by a mother and at least two grown men. He was told it was wrong and not to do it. He agreed he wouldn’t.”

Note the rundown of what’s in the police report and testimony about the incident. To deny it was common sense he knew he shouldn’t be showering alone with kids is intellectually dishonest.

“It’s laughable that you think he’s going to admit he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. You guys have been so focused on other things you’ve allowed a ridiculous fiction to become reality on this board.”

Note the reference to how ridiculous it is to expect that any guilty person is just going to admit something incriminating when given the option to lie.

And yes, you and a host of others are focused on making this all go away to change the way Joe is seen. That’s all that matters to you and quite a few others.

The fact Sandusky’s not being honest based on known facts isn’t important to you. All you’re focused on is arguing for Joe’s innocence.

I specifically asked you to stay on topic, and you respond by going completely off the rails. I should have seen that coming.

You also apparently have a tough time keeping posters straight... although that's probably just another distraction technique.

 

[L.T. Young]

Where is the evidence that he is not telling the truth? The 98 incident resulted in a finding that CSA had not occurred. Sandusky was cleared. Schreffler stated that Sandusky was advised not to shower with young boys. Sandusky remembers that he was advised not to shower with ZK (and he never again showered with ZK). Perhaps there was an honest misunderstanding or perhaps that Sandusky or Schreffler was purposely lying. You may conclude that Sandusky was purposely lying, but I don't. Sandusky has said he did not view 1998 as that big of a deal. In hindsight, he should have taken the incident a lot more seriously and understood the risk he put himself in of being accused of CSA. It is not that much of a stretch to think that after being cleared in 1998 that he didn't understand the risk he placed himself in.

I would not advise showering with youths, but it is not CSA unless there is sexual intent. AM/v2 was like a son to Jerry. In the statement he gave to Curtis Everhart in Nov, 2011 right before Joe Paterno was fired, AM said that he was just horsing around with Sandusky regarding the Lash building v2 incident and that there was nothing sexual ever between him and Sandusky.

And here we go with the “It was just a misunderstanding” BS.

Do you really think anyone is coming out of that ordeal wondering “I guess they meant just that one kid”?

When does Jerry start being judged like a normal person? I’m just asking because it’s documented that a mother made it clear it wasn’t right to shower alone with anybody’s child, then he was investigated for showering alone with a child, then he was advised (told no to) shower alone with children and he agreed not to do it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And here we go with the “It was just a misunderstanding” BS.

Do you really think anyone is coming out of that ordeal wondering “I guess they meant just that one kid”?

When does Jerry start being judged like a normal person? I’m just asking because it’s documented that a mother made it clear it wasn’t right to shower alone with anybody’s child, then he was investigated for showering alone with a child, then he was advised (told no to) shower alone with children and he agreed not to do it.

If you act like he isn't normal you can try and excuse his behavior. Can you imagine the horror most adults would have being told that, not Jerry. Then you have people fighting to justify him as just being odd. He setup a GD charity to cherry pick kids that were low hanging fruit due to their family life....and somehow is a too stupid to understand not to shower with those kids after being told not to. He had to get these kids alone over and over again...just because he was such a nice guy.

 

[JmmyW]

If you act like he isn't normal you can try and excuse his behavior. Can you imagine the horror most adults would have being told that, not Jerry. Then you have people fighting to justify him as just being odd. He setup a GD charity to cherry pick kids that were low hanging fruit due to their family life....and somehow is a too stupid to understand not to shower with those kids after being told not to. He had to get these kids alone over and over again...just because he was such a nice guy.

You mean, like cherry picking young boys in poor family situations and putting an asterisk by their name in the summer camper lists.

I wonder where he'd get information on their family situations.... I know, maybe directly from TSM Summer Challenge Applications.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You mean, like cherry picking young boys in poor family situations and putting an asterisk by their name in the summer camper lists.

I wonder where he'd get information on their family situations.... I know, maybe directly from TSM Summer Challenge Applications.

Yikes!

 

[coveydidnt]

Not that it matters, but go back and read @JmmyW post. It says the Icers and the Ice Lions played on the same day in different towns and had different records per the Collegian. The Icers were the ACHA club team back then. Maybe you should read posts thoroughly all mighty king of Google.

They did play in different towns. They were different teams. The Icers were the ACHA club then. There were and still ARE multiple Penn State Ice Hockey teams.

So what? The Ice Lions existed then also. No issue.

 

[wensilver]

You mean, like cherry picking young boys in poor family situations and putting an asterisk by their name in the summer camper lists.

I wonder where he'd get information on their family situations.... I know, maybe directly from TSM Summer Challenge Applications.

Hmm - one would think, if you’re the Chairman & Fundraiser of a non-profit - you’d put an asterisk next to the names of those folks you want to make a pitch to for Sponsorship / Fundraising.

I can’t see where a 10 year old living in a trailer park with a sick dad would have $10,000 to donate to the Second Mile.

Oh wait.

 

[wensilver]

I agree that there was no logical explanation for Sandusky taking another shower with a kid after 1998 incident. I have some doubts about how far his CSA actually went, but I feel strongly that there is something wrong with him.

Just an observation & I’m using Mixolydian’s quote for context- but it’s 6 years later and folks still aren’t sure what the hell was going on with Jerry.

So imagine you’re Tim and Gary. You only have 1998 to go on. THAT’S IT. You simply don’t know. The guy had the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval slapped on him by CYS.

So they decide it’s boundary issues with Second Mile kids.

So they take it to Second Mile.

I would. I’d have a very hard time placing a call to authorities and trying to explain something I didn’t have any first hand knowledge of about a guy who these very licensed professionals loved & applauded and approved, and then having it blow back in my face.

I’d take it to Second Mile - discuss the university’s position on a former employee & Second Mile kid - and I’d like to think the CEO of the charity would determine the course of action from there.

Alas

Swim trunks

I’d be curious - that if Abraham had done that investigation as she planned - How’d that work out. I wonder who exactly got her to take a hike?

 

[Mixolydian]

Just an observation & I’m using Mixolydian’s quote for context- but it’s 6 years later and folks still aren’t sure what the hell was going on with Jerry.

So imagine you’re Tim and Gary. You only have 1998 to go on. THAT’S IT. You simply don’t know. The guy had the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval slapped on him by CYS.

So they decide it’s boundary issues with Second Mile kids.

So they take it to Second Mile.

I would. I’d have a very hard time placing a call to authorities and trying to explain something I didn’t have any first hand knowledge of about a guy who these very licensed professionals loved & applauded and approved, and then having it blow back in my face.

I’d take it to Second Mile - discuss the university’s position on a former employee & Second Mile kid - and I’d like to think the CEO of the charity would determine the course of action from there.

Alas

Swim trunks

I’d be curious - that if Abraham had done that investigation as she planned - How’d that work out. I wonder who exactly got her to take a hike?

I totally agree with you. That’s what almost anyone would have done in that exact situation, even the sanctimonious clowns who claim they’d have gotten right on the phone to the campus police, the State College police, the Pa State police, the FBI and/or George W. Bush....

Hindsight is an exact science.

 

[wensilver]

I totally agree with you. That’s what almost anyone would have done in that exact situation, even the sanctimonious clowns who claim they’d have gotten right on the phone to the campus police, the State College police, the Pa State police, the FBI and/or George W. Bush....

Hindsight is an exact science.

FWIW - I’ve been trying to contact our PA Office of Attorney General for SIX WEEKS now.

Emails go into a black hole. Ellen who answers puts me into VM. I finally got into a back door today with Josh Shapiro’s assistant & had a nice chat.

So for those asshats that say “they should’ve called the state attorney general” - yeah - that’s gonna happen.

 

[LundyPSU]

I totally agree with you. That’s what almost anyone would have done in that exact situation, even the sanctimonious clowns who claim they’d have gotten right on the phone to the campus police, the State College police, the Pa State police, the FBI and/or George W. Bush....

Hindsight is an exact science.

Interesting that many now question McQueary credibility in the Schiano saga, yet stand by his words about what he claims he witnessed and told JVP, Curley, and Schultz.
I would still like to see Mike's testimony on the Schiano stuff in terms of context and timing