Online Now 648

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 433
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 594
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Latest Ziegler Tweets - 2nd Tweet Added

  • philafan said...

    Those are fair points though.... This is a situation the moment it happened those folks involved were done. 1998 was the only chance to get out OK.... we missed.

    1998 had zero to do with Penn State

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo

  • There's an enormous issue if V2 says he wasn't abused in the showers. Why would McQueary make up something beyond what he actually saw? Unless, of course, he's now trying to save his own skin.

    10+ year old testimony, IMO, has always been the farthest down the totem pole of reliability. Why should I trust detailed explanations that people are giving 10+ years after the fact? Eyewitness testimony is barely reliable a day after it happened, much less more than a decade. McQueary's entire testimony comes under fire. If V2 says nothing happened that night, then McQueary looks more and more like someone who is trying to pass the buck now and put blame on all the people he told, when he wouldn't have actually told them anything (which, based on all the evidence I've seen, is still the most reasonable scenario).

    signature image

    psubills62

  • Considering the people on this board can't get their facts straight, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the general public, who's interest in PSU is much much less, subscribe to the overally general narrative portrayed by the media.

    PSUJT0409 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    UncleLar

  • PSUJT0409 said...

    Considering the people on this board can't get their facts straight, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the general public, who's interest in PSU is much much less, subscribe to the overally general narrative portrayed by the media.

    Amen

    UncleLar

  • appoo said...

    If that boy somehow escaped Sandusky unscathed, then it would be wonderful. However, when it comes to our particular issues with Freeh and with the trials, Only what McQuery told Paterno and Curley/Schultz matters - not what he actually saw.

    The problem with that argument is the fact that what McQueary actually told people is very much in doubt. And what he told people is STRONGLY dependent on what he actually saw.

    So knowing what he saw determines mostly what he might have told people. If there was no abuse, then the chance McQueary actually told people about abuse occurring back then is significantly smaller, especially given that he has no motive to embellish.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • psubills62 said...

    The problem with that argument is the fact that what McQueary actually told people is very much in doubt. And what he told people is STRONGLY dependent on what he actually saw.

    So knowing what he saw determines mostly what he might have told people. If there was no abuse, then the chance McQueary actually told people about abuse occurring back then is significantly smaller, especially given that he has no motive to embellish.

    Agreed, I think the argument is that perhaps what McQueary saw was much more vague than what has been reported and that he either changed his story as the shit hit the fan or that he was encouraged/pressured by prosecutors to paint a much more detailed picture than what he actually saw. Either would validate the Spanier/Curley/Schultz story and the fact that there was no cover-up.

    PSUJT0409 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    ShotofEspresso

  • PSUJT0409 said...

    Agreed, I think the argument is that perhaps what McQueary saw was much more vague than what has been reported and that he either changed his story as the shit hit the fan or that he was encouraged/pressured by prosecutors to paint a much more detailed picture than what he actually saw. Either would validate the Spanier/Curley/Schultz story and the fact that there was no cover-up.

    This case has never been about whether the situation was handled competently. It is without question not handled competently. What I and others have fought is the notion that there was a coverup. That people knowing Sandusky was a pedophile purposely covered it up to protect the football program is what has been asserted. So what happened with V2 does matter. There is no question Curley and Schultz were negligent and perhaps grossly negligent for not involving people that were actually trained to evaluate a situation like this irrespective of how incriminating what McQuerry told them was.

    PSUkurt

  • PSUkurt said...

    This case has never been about whether the situation was handled competently. It is without question not handled competently. What I and others have fought is the notion that there was a coverup. That people knowing Sandusky was a pedophile purposely covered it up to protect the football program is what has been asserted. So what happened with V2 does matter. There is no question Curley and Schultz were negligent and perhaps grossly negligent for not involving people that were actually trained to evaluate a situation like this irrespective of how incriminating what McQuerry told them was.

    Again, I agree. I don't think you can argue that with the benefit of hindsight, the PSU administrators were not negligent, perhaps as you said even grossly negligent with the information they were given. However that's a far cry from an actual cover-up. That's much easier to prove if you can show the information that they were given was much more vague than what is being reported.

    This post was edited by PSUJT0409 on 3/3/2013 at 5:20 PM

    PSUJT0409 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    MDS99

  • appoo said...

    you know, I don't think there's any question that Sandusky abused that child. Just because he didn't happen to do it the night McQuery saw them in the shower, isn't very important to me. Fact is, McQuery reported...something...up the chain. Perhaps you can argue that a football coach has zero place in dealing with the issue, beyond reporting what was told to him to the proper authorities, but those authorities d*mn well have the responsibility of dealing with this issue to the fullest of their abilities.

    As for conviction, it was always going to be incredibly hard to convict, and it was never clear to me why the State was pursueing this case - they charged them with perjury regarding what McQuery told them in a meeting that was never documented or recorded. However, they probably have a much stronger case regarding the perjury charges that stemmed from the Freeh report. It's going to be very difficult for Curley and Schultz to argue that they weren't aware of that investigation, considering the email chains they had going on. This isn't like Joe, who was only tertiary mentioned - and it's even a question if he was the subject in some of these emails - these two were hip deep.

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the significance of this - but again I always thought the State had a losing case in the original perjury charges, and V2 doesn't have anything to do with the charges added on.

    Maybe the difference between us is that I believe MM could easily be lying. If we have a victim saying he is the boy from that night, then MM did not see him abused. Do you not see how this is enormous for PSU and Curley/Schultz? If there as no abuse, how do you convict people for saying they weren't told of abuse? And if they weren't told of abuse, how is there a PSU cover up? You say MM reported something up the chain, but if what he reported isn't a crime, people would be behave in the manner that they behaved in.

    We know Sandusky is a pedophile and should be in jail forever. Not the issue here.

    PSU17

  • PSUkurt said...

    This case has never been about whether the situation was handled competently. It is without question not handled competently. What I and others have fought is the notion that there was a coverup. That people knowing Sandusky was a pedophile purposely covered it up to protect the football program is what has been asserted. So what happened with V2 does matter. There is no question Curley and Schultz were negligent and perhaps grossly negligent for not involving people that were actually trained to evaluate a situation like this irrespective of how incriminating what McQuerry told them was.

    +1

    ftlawdog

  • Does not matter what V2 says now. It comes down to what MM said or what was alledgedly said. IMO that will define process of sanction reduction or not. NCAA will drag case out until it is moot point. There will be mo compromise. I hope I am wrong.

    locopsu

  • locopsu said...

    Does not matter what V2 says now. It comes down to what MM said or what was alledgedly said. IMO that will define process of sanction reduction or not. NCAA will drag case out until it is moot point. There will be mo compromise. I hope I am wrong.

    but "what if" V2 was contacted by curley or shultz for clarification on what had happened? Or Raykowitz?

    TheBleedingLion

  • Wait, what am i missing here?

    - MM says V2 was sodomized by Sandusky.
    - V2 come out and says, albiet a little late, but says none the less, that he was not victimized by Sandusky.

    I dont know if i am missing anything here, but how does this not help curley/shultz? (Serious question)

    Twitter: @PrashunGhosh

    PKG

  • appoo said...

    It's not an entirely unfair viewpoint, minus the Paterno waited to report - all of those bullet points are true. Personally, I believe Penn State administration absolutely failed those children, and share blame with any number of institutions that allowed Sandusky to run free. My issues is with this idea that the Administrators refused to act to protect the football program, and that Paterno willfully covered Sandusky up to protect his program.

    Both of those particular accusations are utterly without evidence and border on delusional. Our Athletic Dept, our athletic culture, our balance between student and athlete, are all still models for the rest of the NCAA institutions to look up to and emulate.

    I think we all need to read Jim Clemente's report again. Even before that report came out I felt the administrators didn't see the "red" flags because of 2 things...

    1) They knew Sandusky, knew what he's done in the community, and who everyone thought he was
    2) They (Schultz at least) were told he has "boundary" issues. That's what the result of the 1998 investigation was to them. They didn't know about Patricia Chamber assessment, only the one that said Jerry has boundary issues.

    If they truly believed Jerry had a problem but that problem was boundary issues then being told a vague description of JS showering with a child. They reasonably thought of the boundary issues resurfacing. They said they would tell him no more showering with kids, get help, and tell 2nd mile. These actions seem reasonable under their belief system and no crime being reported.

    The problem I have is everyone looks back with the information we have now and makes judgements. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    BKHPSU

  • Not quite on topic here, but this thread is a solid, nearly model example, of how the mods would prefer members to conduct themselves in a thread, especially on such a sensitive topic. An easy read where people are expressing differing viewpoints in a very civil manner. Kudos all.

    signature image signature image

    If you havent signed up for premium 247 yet..take my word for it...its worth it!

    Seltz ●

  • BKHPSU said...

    I think we all need to read Jim Clemente's report again. Even before that report came out I felt the administrators didn't see the "red" flags because of 2 things...

    1) They knew Sandusky, knew what he's done in the community, and who everyone thought he was 2) They (Schultz at least) were told he has "boundary" issues. That's what the result of the 1998 investigation was to them. They didn't know about Patricia Chamber assessment, only the one that said Jerry has boundary issues.

    If they truly believed Jerry had a problem but that problem was boundary issues then being told a vague description of JS showering with a child. They reasonably thought of the boundary issues resurfacing. They said they would tell him no more showering with kids, get help, and tell 2nd mile. These actions seem reasonable under their belief system and no crime being reported.

    The problem I have is everyone looks back with the information we have now and makes judgements. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    This.

    PHD77 ●

  • BKHPSU said...

    I think we all need to read Jim Clemente's report again. Even before that report came out I felt the administrators didn't see the "red" flags because of 2 things...

    1) They knew Sandusky, knew what he's done in the community, and who everyone thought he was 2) They (Schultz at least) were told he has "boundary" issues. That's what the result of the 1998 investigation was to them. They didn't know about Patricia Chamber assessment, only the one that said Jerry has boundary issues.

    If they truly believed Jerry had a problem but that problem was boundary issues then being told a vague description of JS showering with a child. They reasonably thought of the boundary issues resurfacing. They said they would tell him no more showering with kids, get help, and tell 2nd mile. These actions seem reasonable under their belief system and no crime being reported.

    The problem I have is everyone looks back with the information we have now and makes judgements. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    +1

    signature image signature image signature image

    pwpitch

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo

  • appoo said...

    As for conviction, it was always going to be incredibly hard to convict, and it was never clear to me why the State was pursueing this case - they charged them with perjury regarding what McQuery told them in a meeting that was never documented or recorded. However, they probably have a much stronger case regarding the perjury charges that stemmed from the Freeh report. It's going to be very difficult for Curley and Schultz to argue that they weren't aware of that investigation, considering the email chains they had going on. This isn't like Joe, who was only tertiary mentioned - and it's even a question if he was the subject in some of these emails - these two were hip deep.

    The perjury charges were brought to knock out the best witnesses for Sandusky's defense and to cut out any evidence contrary to what McQueary offered. No other reasons.

    This post was edited by psume06 on 3/4/2013 at 8:02 AM

    psume06

  • PSU17 said...

    Maybe the difference between us is that I believe MM could easily be lying. If we have a victim saying he is the boy from that night, then MM did not see him abused. Do you not see how this is enormous for PSU and Curley/Schultz? If there as no abuse, how do you convict people for saying they weren't told of abuse? And if they weren't told of abuse, how is there a PSU cover up? You say MM reported something up the chain, but if what he reported isn't a crime, people would be behave in the manner that they behaved in.

    We know Sandusky is a pedophile and should be in jail forever. Not the issue here.

    C&S were charged with perjury and failure to report (I think). That is purely a function of what MM said, rather than saw. From his testimony we know that he was vague with Paterno, but made sure Joe knew it was of a sexual nature (this is corroborated by joes own testimony right?), and claimed to tell C&S much more explicit details. The 2 claim otherwise. Someone is lying. Considering what Sandusky was convicted of, I think the odds are that MM saw something that he thought might have been sexual abuse but wasn't sure of - hence going to everybody but the cops.

    Basically this is my long winded way of saying what happened isn't as important as what he thought he saw and reported.

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo

  • appoo said...

    you know, I don't think there's any question that Sandusky abused that child. Just because he didn't happen to do it the night McQuery saw them in the shower, isn't very important to me. Fact is, McQuery reported...something...up the chain. Perhaps you can argue that a football coach has zero place in dealing with the issue, beyond reporting what was told to him to the proper authorities, but those authorities d*mn well have the responsibility of dealing with this issue to the fullest of their abilities.

    As for conviction, it was always going to be incredibly hard to convict, and it was never clear to me why the State was pursueing this case - they charged them with perjury regarding what McQuery told them in a meeting that was never documented or recorded. However, they probably have a much stronger case regarding the perjury charges that stemmed from the Freeh report. It's going to be very difficult for Curley and Schultz to argue that they weren't aware of that investigation, considering the email chains they had going on. This isn't like Joe, who was only tertiary mentioned - and it's even a question if he was the subject in some of these emails - these two were hip deep.

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the significance of this - but again I always thought the State had a losing case in the original perjury charges, and V2 doesn't have anything to do with the charges added on.

    edit

    This post was edited by md154 on 3/4/2013 at 8:20 AM

    md154

  • appoo said...

    C&S were charged with perjury and failure to report (I think). That is purely a function of what MM said, rather than saw. From his testimony we know that he was vague with Paterno, but made sure Joe knew it was of a sexual nature (this is corroborated by joes own testimony right?), and claimed to tell C&S much more explicit details. The 2 claim otherwise. Someone is lying. Considering what Sandusky was convicted of, I think the odds are that MM saw something that he thought might have been sexual abuse but wasn't sure of - hence going to everybody but the cops.

    Basically this is my long winded way of saying what happened isn't as important as what he thought he saw and reported.

    I agree with you. Someone is lying and it does matter what MM told to TC/GS. But to me, if this is indeed victim 2 and he is saying he never was molested it makes me think even more that MM is the one lying.

    Consider:
    MM telling his dad and Dranov there was nothing sexual in nature
    Being ambiguous to Paterno
    TC/GS saying they were told there was nothing illegal
    and now (supposedly) victim 2 saying he was never molested that night

    VS

    MM saying he told them he saw molestation

    The only thing that makes sense to me is that MM is the one lying. And if this is indeed victim 2 and he continues to claim what he is, it cements it more that MM is probably the one lying.

    (caveat - this is what is known right now. If there is a "smoking gun" for the prosecution and it without a doubt points to these guys lying, then they need to go to jail forever)

    PSU17

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports