Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[slappybrown]

So you don't believe Paterno?

[ulf]

Every time I forget this happened and it's completely out of mind, some whack job does something new, commissions a new report, or starts their own investigation. Let. It. Go.

It's happened again!

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

So you don't believe Paterno?

I don't believe that Paterno could accurately remember what McQuery told him. He was recollecting events 10 years after they actually took place. Paterno had a close relationship with McQuery and trusted him. After Paterno was no longer able to stand on sidelines, McQuery acted as the person who would relay Paterno's directions from the box to the rest of the team and coaching staff. I believe that McQuery probably talked to Paterno shortly before their grand jury testimony about what happened, and Paterno trusted McQuery enough that if McQuery said that he saw something of a sexual nature, then he saw something of a sexual nature.

[relantel]

There is some level of irony in Penn State hiring Dr. Barron from FSU.

[viva la ben]

Perhaps OJ should contract these "voices of freedom" to find the real killer.

[shmenguin]

none of these details change any of the big picture problems here.

Care to elaborate?

Paterno, Curley and Schultz are told about child rape (and Mcqueary, of course, is even a bigger piece of s***). they do not immediately go to the police. presumably, they also sleep well at night and comfortably live with themselves, though this is speculative.

nothing has changed. maybe you're more focusing on how these details relate to the NCAA sanctions. i don't really have a strong opinion on that.

Paterno was never told of child rape. He was told at best that there was some improper conduct of a sexual nature per Paterno's recollection 10 years later. If you read the grand jury report, Paterno seems to struggle to actually describe what McQuery told him. McQuery testified that he wasn't clear with what he told Paterno and later emailed the prosecution stating that he couldn't be sure he saw rape, and could only say what he saw was sexual misconduct. McQuery also reported what he saw to his father and a family friend, Dr. John Dravanov. Both hold positions that per law require them to report sexual abuse but neither did. Dr. Dravanov's testimony contradicts McQuery as does Curley and Schultz. So the only person other than McQuery's father that somewhat supports McQuery's testimony is Paterno. Someone who came forward as the alleged victim is on the record stating that nothing sexual happened that night! If you actually read the testimony and actually think for yourself you'll actually realize that McQuery's story is bogus, and the chances he actually reported that what he saw as sexual is slim.

this is a lot of people back peddling once they figured out that they might be in big trouble.

also, you're citing things from investigations performed by sandusky's attorney's office and calling them fact. and what the hell is this?

So the only person other than McQuery's father that somewhat supports McQuery's testimony is Paterno

those 3 were told what they were told and they didn't do anything, despite knowing about allegations from 4 years earlier. nothing's changed.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Every time I forget this happened and it's completely out of mind, some whack job does something new, commissions a new report, or starts their own investigation. Let. It. Go.

It's happened again!

So if you are ever arrested for a crime you didn't commit, you'll gladly accept the accusations, skip the trial, and go directly to jail, no questions asked?

[Troy Loney]

Every time I forget this happened and it's completely out of mind, some whack job does something new, commissions a new report, or starts their own investigation. Let. It. Go.

It's happened again!

So if you are ever arrested for a crime you didn't commit, you'll gladly accept the accusations, skip the trial, and go directly to jail, no questions asked?

Public opinion and NCAA sanctions aren't the same as jail though.

[shmenguin]

Paterno was never told of child rape. He was told at best that there was some improper conduct of a sexual nature

i don't know how i missed this. does this seem like it helps your case. at all?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

those 3 were told what they were told and they didn't do anything, despite knowing about allegations from 4 years earlier. nothing's changed.

There is no concrete evidence of what they were told. You are choosing to believe one person, McQuery.

[relantel]

yes... we know the rhetoric. Unless you believe everything, word for word that was shoved down your throat by the national media back when the story first broke, you're a lunatic PSU fan.

This is a pretty good way of putting it. Most would rather it just go away, rather than wait for the adversarial process of the trials of the accused. Anything that is possibly exculpatory must be from a "whack-job", to quote ulf.

What boggles me is that Sandusky is rushed to trial, yet we're well into year 3 with no sign of a trial date in sight for Curley, Schultz and Spanier. I don't doubt Sandusky is guilty, but I also don't think he got a fair trial. The shifting games of the prosecution, changing dates and locations of alleged events even in the middle of the trial, for example. Or the judge allowing hearsay testimony (janitor incident) and allowing it to stand even when the alleged second witness to the utterance never testified. Later disproven as possible, the counts still were upheld on appeal despite the defect of the hearsay. Some say what's the difference between convicted on 45/48 counts and only 37/48. Maybe not much. But the distinction and dishonesty of the prosecution in part of their case calls into question all of their actions.

I'd wager had they not rushed, some of these mistakes aren't made, and the case is likely more rock-solid against Sandusky, and the counts that were questionable would have been dropped, in favor of other alleged victims 11-17. But if they included 11-17 it might have blown their whole blame PSU angle. Let us not forget the reason Curley and Schultz were in the original presentment - to try and shift blame on PSU and away from DPW, and to keep Curley and Schultz quiet. So far, that has worked in the public's mind.

Can't wait for the Moulton report.

[viva la ben]

Didn't joe say something about looking back he wished he did more?

[shmenguin]

Didn't joe say something about looking back he wished he did more?

yeah, but he's an old man, so you can't take him seriously...or something like that

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Every time I forget this happened and it's completely out of mind, some whack job does something new, commissions a new report, or starts their own investigation. Let. It. Go.

It's happened again!

So if you are ever arrested for a crime you didn't commit, you'll gladly accept the accusations, skip the trial, and go directly to jail, no questions asked?

Public opinion and NCAA sanctions aren't the same as jail though.

Yet Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are facing jail time if found guilty are they not?

[count2infinity]

Didn't joe say something about looking back he wished he did more?

hindsight... you don't look back at any moment in your life and think, "man... I really messed that up, I wish I could go back and do it differently."

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Didn't joe say something about looking back he wished he did more?

His exact quote was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Meaning, knowing now that Sandusky was a pedophile, he would have done more.

[viva la ben]

So your saying Joe messed up!

[Troy Loney]

Every time I forget this happened and it's completely out of mind, some whack job does something new, commissions a new report, or starts their own investigation. Let. It. Go.

It's happened again!

So if you are ever arrested for a crime you didn't commit, you'll gladly accept the accusations, skip the trial, and go directly to jail, no questions asked?

Public opinion and NCAA sanctions aren't the same as jail though.

Yet Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are facing jail time if found guilty are they not?

Are you implying that the court decisions are going to yield to public opinion?

This whole issue is what did they know and when. The only people that can definitely answer that question are the people that have the ability to not incriminate themselves. I don't think anyone is expecting for there to be concrete evidence. To me, all I see is a serial pedophile operating in state college around the university, having been accused multiple times, and yet continued molesting children for years.

I guess I don't see who your trying to sway by continuing to bring up these reports. It seems like PSU people view the sanctions as an injustice, I couldn't care less about sanctions regarding football. It just seems like your trying to adjust the percentage of blame, but for a lot of people it's a simple zero/sum game.

[relantel]

Didn't joe say something about looking back he wished he did more?

With the benefit of hindsight, i.e. after having read the presentment, he wished he'd have done more. Everyone always leaves out the first part of the sentence, "with the benefit of hindsight".

[slappybrown]

those 3 were told what they were told and they didn't do anything, despite knowing about allegations from 4 years earlier. nothing's changed.

There is no concrete evidence of what they were told. You are choosing to believe one person, McQuery.

And Paterno. Who in their right mind would say to a grand jury "McQueary told me there were improper sexual relations between Sandusky and a kid" if they don't recall McQueary saying this. The vagueness surrounding what he was told -- which appears to be "inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor" on one end and "rape" at the other -- is not a spectrum that a convincing defense rests. Its pretty gross actually.

To your other point -- whats the information relating to the alleged victim that McQueary told Paterno about and that alleged victim recanting? Do you have a link I could read.

[shmenguin]

His exact quote was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Meaning, knowing now that Sandusky was a pedophile, he would have done more.

good point...paterno definitely would have confessed to knowing about the rape right then and there if he actually knew anything. what possible motive could he have by not coming totally clean?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Slappy, I'll repost this.

New article by Don Van Natta Jr. about Michael McQuery released today by ESPN the Magazine.

Full article:
http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_ ... last-stand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Summary of article:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ources-say" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The story includes some interesting details that have been reported by others but this is the first time someone from the mainstream media has reported them.

Details include:
-"When the presentment was made public on Nov. 4, 2011, McQueary was reported as seeing Sandusky engaged in "anal intercourse" with a 10-year-old boy in the shower. But in subsequent testimony, McQueary acknowledged he never clearly saw anal intercourse and only assumed it had occurred based on several quick glances and the sounds he heard."
-"A previously undisclosed email sent by McQueary to authorities demonstrates he had thought the prosecutors' description in the presentment of what he had seen -- and what he reported to Paterno -- was not accurate."
-"When the presentment charging Sandusky, Curley and Schultz was released, it was written by the 33rd grand jury. In that document, prosecutors said McQueary, identified only as a graduate assistant, was found by the grand jury to be "extremely credible." However, the 33rd grand jury never heard McQueary testify. An earlier grand jury, the 30th, heard McQueary testify on Dec. 16, 2010."
-McQuery says that Paterno's handling of the situation was done "in the best way he could."
-McQuery had a gambling problem and gambled on PSU while he was a backup QB.
-McQuery told players on the 2011 team that he was sexually abused as a child. No mention was made in the article regarding who abused him.

The biggest information not reported previously by the mainstream media but found by John Ziegler:

The Mag story also reports new details about "Victim 2," the boy, now in his mid-20s, who was in the shower when McQueary witnessed Sandusky's alleged assault. A week after the presentment was released, a young man in his mid-20s identified himself as "Victim 2" to Joseph L. Amendola, the defense lawyer for Sandusky. In a wide-ranging interview on Nov. 9, 2011, in Amendola's State College law office, the young man, accompanied by his mother and brother, told Amendola and his investigator that at the time of the shower incident he was 14, not 10 or 11, as McQueary estimated.

According to a five-page memo detailing the interview written by Curtis Everhart, Amendola's investigator, the man said the incident happened on Feb. 9, 2001, not on March 1, 2002, as prosecutors had written in their presentment. The man said "this particular night is very clear in my mind," the memo states. In the shower after a workout, the man said he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker." The man said he recalled hearing a locker slam but never saw the person who slammed it. "The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity," the man said. "Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

Amendola thought Victim 2 would provide a break as he began preparing Sandusky's defense. But two weeks later, Amendola said he ran into a local lawyer at the Centre County Courthouse who told him the young man who had identified himself as Victim 2 had in fact been a victim of Sandusky and intended to sue Penn State.

Victim 2 has since received a multi-million dollar settlement from PSU. Also not mentioned in the article is that Victim 2 wrote a letter to his local newspaper defending Sandusky shortly after the Sandusky news orginally broke.

[shmenguin]

how, exactly, do you think it played out with mcqueary and paterno when they had this conversation?

he, as you admit, tells his dad in detail what he saw. he then goes out of his way to have this meeting with paterno, and then what..."hey, joe. just a heads up. sandusky was horseplaying with some kid in the shower. that's it. bye.". what would have been the point of this discussion, if not to reveal what happened?

you can spin hypotheticals, but does what you're saying make any sense whatsoever in real life?

[shmenguin]

^ sandusky's defense claims in memo that things aren't as bad as they seem. film at 11.

[columbia]

Ziegler is a high level Paterno truther, right?