Penn State, police deny Paterno assistant reported rape

[spanone]

Penn State and the State College police say they have no records to support assistant football coach Mike McQueary's contention that he told police about the alleged rape of a 10-year-old boy by Jerry Sandusky in an athletic facility shower in 2002.

McQueary's claim is contained in a Nov. 8 e-mail to a friend that surfaced Tuesday. He also spoke briefly with CBS News.

Update at 4:03 p.m. ET Wednesday: The university has released a statement denying that McQueary contacted police.

"Since hearing of the news reports, we are looking into this matter," said Lisa Powers, director of public information for Penn State. "Right now we have no record of any police report filed by Mike McQueary. This is the first we have heard of it."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/11/report-penn-state-coach-says-he-stopped-shower-assault/1

[Angry Dragon]

1. One should have a shovel kiosk at Penn state

make millions dollars

[valerief]

9. Bwah! Yeah, it's neck-deep there. nt

[MADem]

2. There should be a police report, if there was a report. nt

[spanone]

4. from the story...

"Right now we have no record of any police report filed by Mike McQueary. This is the first we have heard of it."

[MADem]

6. I think he was trying to make himself look better amongst his friends.

So he lied in the email.

Wonder how his email marries up with his grand jury testimony?

[spanone]

7. could be. hope we get to the truth eventually.

they were discussing this on hardball...how if sandusky's defense could prove mcqueary an unreliable witness, that the defense could use this in sandusky's favor.

[Whisp]

5. or it was 'misfiled'.

I smell a few whiffs of large money and influence in this tragedy that goes beyond Penn state itself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Yeah, now the State College police are in on it, too!

Everybody's in on it! A much more "simple" explanation than that Mike McQueary may not be the most truthful person on a the planet, a conclusion that must be avoided at all costs, since he is the only seeming witness to some imagined massive cover-up.

It's like a fucking MC Escher illustration around here anymore.

[Whisp]

19. There are too many oddities, aren't there?

Yes, Virginia, there really really are some conspiracies.

===

http://articles.courant.com/2011-11-11/news/hc-penn-state-sex-abuse-case-prosecutor-missing-20111111_1_person-case-hard-drive-child-sexual-abuse-case

Prosecutor In Penn State Case Went Missing In 2005

Computer Found In River, But Body Of District Attorney Never Found

November 11, 2011|By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
HARTFORD — The child sexual abuse case that led to the firing of famed Penn State football coach Joe Paterno has rocketed around the country with widespread media attention on national television every day.

But one aspect of the controversy that has gotten relatively little coverage is the unexplained disappearance of the prosecutor in the case.

It is the strange mystery of Ray Gricar, the district attorney in central Pennsylvania who has been missing since 2005. He had been investigating Jerry Sandusky, the longtime Penn State defensive coordinator who has now been charged by a grand jury that identified eight victims in a detailed, 23-page indictment.

Gricar, a tough prosecutor, had decided not to bring charges in 1998 against Sandusky regarding sex abuse allegations. Then in April 2005, Gricar went missing after calling his girlfriend, and his laptop computer - without the hard drive - was found in the Susquehanna River, the largest river in that section of Pennsylvania. The hard drive was later found, in the river, six months after his disappearance.

The case that Gricar had been pursuing is the same one that is described as "Victim 6'' on page 18 of the 23-page indictment.

===

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/penn-state-child-molester-may-have-pimped-out-boys

Penn State Child Molester May Have Pimped Out Boys To Wealthy Donors

CULTURE BUZZ Just when you think this awful story couldn't get any worse. Mark Madden, the sports writer in Pennsylvania who first broke the Jerry Sandusky child rape story, now claims that Sandusky is rumored to have sold children for sex to wealthy donors. Here's a radio clip of Madden discussing an investigation into the stomach-turning allegations.

[fishwax]

24. mark madden didn't break the story

"Just when you think this awful story couldn't get any worse. Mark Madden, the sports writer in Pennsylvania who first broke the Jerry Sandusky child rape story, now claims that Sandusky is rumored to have sold children for sex to wealthy donors. Here's a radio clip of Madden discussing an investigation into the stomach-turning allegations."

Mark Madden didn't break the story. He wrote a column about the grand jury investigation back in April, a few days after reporters for the Harrisburg Patriot News broke the story. AFAIK, there's been no shred of evidence supporting the rumor that Sandusky used the charity to supply victims to wealthy pedophile donors. Madden simply said there was a rumor to that effect (even he used the word rumor) and that a couple of reporters/columnists were investigating, and then it got repeated across the interwebs as a real thing.

As for Gricar, I don't think there's any evidence tying this case to his disappearance, either, though it has certainly invited a lot of conspiracy-minded speculation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. I guess since we're all speculating

The particularly kooky versions of the speculation will entertain some people.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Just because McQueary is trying

to make himself feel better doesn't mean Sandusky didn't abuse those kids. What he admitted to Costas on the phone interview pretty much tells us he's a douchebag. And that was his damage control.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Sandusky is guilty

Curley and Schultz, I'm not so sure.

[Staph]

8. I wonder....

If the campus or local police received a report of a criminal nature within the Penn State athletic department, how likely would they be to deposit that report into the circular file? To make the assumption that Joe Paterno would never allow something like that? Or to decide to hide the evidence or a crime, so that the money-making machine that is Penn State football would not be interrupted?

I'm not making a blanket indictment of the police in central Pennsylvania, or anywhere else. My god-daughter's brother is a West Virginia state policeman, and I would trust him with my life. But I can imagine the circumstance where Mike McQueary is shading the truth a bit to make himself less of the villain, as easily as I can imagine that the local police swept the report under the rug.

I truly wonder if we will ever know the truth of what happened in Happy Valley?

[MADem]

10. I think maybe McQueary didn't expect one of his "buddies" to show the email to the media.

He didn't think it through. He never contemplated that one of his friends might say "Come on--what about the grand jury testimony? Something isn't adding up here?" and drop a dime on the guy.

That's just a guess, but sometimes the most obvious scenario can turn out to be the way it went down.

[Avalux]

18. If that's true, what a lucky break for Sandusky and officials.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Or maybe McQueary was the one the GJ should have found not credible

And Curley and Schultz were accurately describing McQueary's discussions with them. Who knows? He doesn't seem particularly honest when pressed.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see Tim Curley walking into the Grand Jury and so obviously perjuring himself.

[MADem]

40. What motive would McQueary have for BSing the Grand Jury? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. That's an easy one

He doesn't know why he's being questioned by police and subpoenaed to the Grand Jury.

For all he knows, they have Victim #2 waiting in the wings to ID him and hang a perjury rap around his neck if he tells them all he saw was horseplay, so he tells the truth about what he thinks he saw that night. Once he does that, he has to pin it on higher ups because otherwise the whole cover up is actually on him, which seems increasingly to be the case.

To Curley and Schultz at the time, he soft sells it completely, primarily because he wants it looked into without having to admit to these guys that he saw an assault and did nothing.

Tell me how this is less plausible than McQueary's current story. He's apparently so embarrassed about having done nothing that he's openly and obviously lying about having done something, even now. But we're to believe that he walked into Tim Curley's office (or Joe Pa's house!) and told them he witnessed a rape and did NOTHING about it?!? It's not remotely believable to me that he said that to either Paterno or Curley, or Schultz for that matter. He can't even say it today!

[MADem]

50. You still aren't convincing me why he'd lie? What's in it for him?

You can't hang a perjury rap on someone for assuming that a naked man on top of a little kid equals rape, even in the unlikely event that it was :eyes: "horseplay." It's a natural assumption to make--unless you're a very strange person. If an old lady testifies that the guy breaking into the car across the street was six foot three and he was only five five, no one's going to hang a perjury rap on her. Same deal with this guy--perjury is a complete non-starter.

If there was any way he could have convinced himself that it was "horse play" (the absurdity of that is mind-boggling) then he wouldn't have had a need to say anything to anyone.

And why hasn't Joe Pa said "That guy never talked to me. He's making all that shit up." He would have SAVED his job and reputation had he done that. For that matter, why didn't Curley and Schultz say that McQueary never talked to them. Why did they tuck tail and leave their posts? Why? Because McQueary DID tell him and the others what he saw.

Sorry, I just can't buy your convoluted postulation. I think McQueary was ashamed that he didn't do more, and was trying to mitigate his conduct with his peers. I'd also like to see the full email to get the context--it's easy to make assumptions about what is meant/said with a partial transcript.

Time will tell, though.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Time will indeed tell.

Time is telling on McQueary faster than I would have thought!

We're talking about why McQueary would think he had to tell the truth to the Grand Jury, not whether a perjury charge on that basis would stand up in court. You think it's convoluted for McQueary to think "Oh shit, maybe they have the kid. I better spill everything." That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thought process to me.

As for Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, I never claimed he didn't speak to them. I said - clearly, I thought - that he told them a much sanitized version because he was ashamed of his in action even then. He told them horseplay, just as they're saying he did. He's lying. They're not. pretty simple, actually.

I also think McQueary was ashamed he didn't do more, and was trying to mitigate his conduct with his bosses. That's why he told them a much sanitized story. When faced with the prospect of the kid telling a grand jury exactly what McQueary really saw, he went with the truth about the incident, but a lie about what he told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. It's not complicated at all.

McQueary 2002: Lied about incident to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz (reason: ashamed of inaction)
McQueary 2010/2011: Told truth about incident to Grand Jury, lied about what he told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz (reason: afraid of impeachment by victim)

[MADem]

57. Why did they all quit, then? If they didn't know the extent of this, why are they

behaving like they are guilty and have done something wrong? Paterno was the only one who was told he couldn't coach that last game, but he didn't really get fired, he just resigned sooner than he wanted to, with a tarnished reputation. He will still get a massive pension. The other two flat-out resigned--they didn't wait to be fired.

Why didn't they try to keep their jobs, and stand up, point the finger, and accuse McQueary of not telling them how bad it was? Why didn't they vociferously defend themselves if they'd truly been misled as to the seriousness of the situation?

Where were the "If we had only KNOWN...if he had only TOLD us..." statements to the public? Instead, they just packed up, lawyered up, and ran like hell. They may be trying for the "plausible deniability" defense, but their conduct doesn't quite pass the smell test.

I have to wonder if they had severance packages that could be at risk if they were still associated with the school when the shit hits the fan--and it will, eventually.

I just don't understand that behavior by the board guys. Innocent people don't hand in a resignation letter and skulk off. The ones who are acting "guilty" are the ones who are out of a job through their own cuttin-n-runnin, and they are also the ones who apparently didn't do the appropriate reporting. The only one who has been kept on with his paycheck thus far is McQueary.

We'll see. It's a real mess of a case, in any event.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Come on, now

On a he said / he said perjury defense, that's precisely what you do. You declare innocence and shut up.

Why did they resign? They didn't. Curley requested administrative leave to fight the charges. Schultz was serving on an interim basis and went back to retirement. They both pled not guilty, and vowed to fight the charges.

I will make you a bet: I will pay $100 to DU if either of them pleads guilty to any of the charges. I will pay $50 to DU if they are convicted. You pay $100 if the Attorney General drops the case, $50 if they are acquitted.

"Innocent people don't hand in a resignation letter and skulk off." That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard: innocent people often have to leave their jobs when accused of a crime. You can't fulfill complex job functions when you're in the middle of a firestorm. It's also better for the organization. In this case, I believe Curley is still receiving a paycheck; he's on the same status as McQueary, but PSU is apparently paying for his attorneys as well.

One thing is clear: you have shifted to this strategy of misrepresenting and misinterpreting their job status because, I suspect, the logic of why McQueary lies to the Grand Jury is actually quite clear.

[MADem]

59. You don't QUIT, though. If you are innocent, you Do Not Quit.

Even if the excuse is "administrative leave" or "going back to retirement."

If this shit hadn't hit the fan, they would not have quit. They'd still be strutting around campus. They may as well say they want to spend more time with their families.

And what's the simplest way to fight the charges? Why not just say, if McQueary was a liar, that "McQueary was a liar--he never told me that." These guys aren't playing Santa at a mall--they could still do their jobs. They have never gone in front of a camera and said "I did not hear McQueary EVER say that. He's LYING." I don't think they ever will, either. But that's just my opinion.

And here's the biggest point that can't be brushed aside: It's not McQueary who is being charged with lying to a grand jury--it is those guys.

I am not so invested in this situation that I care about you making bets or offering me money. I wouldn't want your cash if I was "right." (And I don't claim to "know" anything--this situation, and the excuses by the accused, just stink to high heaven, in my opinion--and nothing more than that). I also don't have that kind of money to throw around. If I had a spare hundred, I've got a sick relative who would get it before I'd make a silly internet bet on something I sure as hell am not claiming to have inside knowledge about.

Apparently, the Penn State campus cops are exempt from reporting requirements, which could be a piece of this whole puzzle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/open-the-records-at-penn-state.html

They've also assigned a judge with no connection to that sordid mess to the case, so that might help.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. I'd be curious to see what the grand jury thinks of McQueary's recent escapades

It's kinda hard when the guy you say is more credible is caught lying in such an obvious manner regarding his contact with the police.

Bet stands when you want to take it, despite your excuses. In fact, I'll waive your side. I pay if they plead or get convicted, you don't do anything. The cases on perjury is pure shit, and will be dropped. It was pure shit before McQueary started phoning and emailing. It's a dead dog now. We shall see, as you say.

As for the records and the University Park police, you're just ignorant of the laws in Pennsylvania. At the time of the incident, all state agencies had the same non-transparent records requirements. The law was changed in 2008, but the big four public(/private) Universities were exempted, presumably to protect donor information. So it's deeply unlikely that it's a "piece of the puzzle." Clearly, the University Park police provided their reports on the 1998 incident to the Grand Jury, since it is referenced in the Presentment. They also apparently had cooperative testimony from at least one University Park detective assigned to the 1998 case.

[MADem]

64. Well, he may not have been lying. I haven't seen the whole email, have you?

You know how context can be. The only snippets I saw of the email had a shitload of "dot dot dot" between the phrases.

Again, I am not going to make an internet "bet" on something I am not claiming to "know" about. I hope that is sufficiently clear. I'm simply speculating here, and you seem to be taking this a bit more seriously. I also would not feel good about myself wagering on the behavior or outcomes of a bunch of child molester enablers--that's just sick. If you have spare cash though, a donation to a victim support cause wouldn't be amiss if you had a mind to give some cash away.

I am not "ignorant of the laws," I was just citing the link I provided. You are paraphrasing it in your last paragraph, I see.

The bottom line is, the police weren't releasing their stuff way back when, and they still aren't. Apparently that 1998 report was hidden from the light of day for WAY too long, so they weren't in a hurry to be forthcoming.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Or he may have been

La di da.

I'll take you up on it: they plead or get convicted, victim's cause of your choice gets paid. Let me know. I see you're starting to descend into personal insults, though, so I guess we'll have to stop.

I didn't read your link at all, in any case. I just happen to know the law in PA, since I lived there for ten years (in State College). I did browse a NY Times article on it a few days ago, though, I'll admit. I do agree that PSU should waive its exemption and release all documents relating to these matters immediately. Policy is a grind, especially when backed by statute.

[MADem]

68. I don't understand you.

I'm not descending into personal insults and don't know where you're getting that idea.

If you don't read the link, it's impossible to take my point, now, isn't it? It was all about that thing you were claiming I was "ignorant" of....but whatever.

See you around. You do what you want with your money.

[RainDog]

69. or, here's an alternate explanation that would make McQ and the two admins both right

McQ met with Paterno the next day and told him about what he saw. Paterno says something about Jerry having been investigated for "horseplay" in the past. Paterno files it away in his mind in this way.

McQ, who is only a grad student, does not press for his version because the person he's talking to has more authority and a background with the situation. So McQ thinks... could I have been wrong... at that moment.

Then TWO WEEKS LATER, after Paterno has already gone to the admins, McQ is finally called in. Prior to this, Paterno has already planted the "horseplay" story in the admins' minds. Paterno, with more more authority, has already minimized the claims prior to the student talking to them.

So, who do they believe? The grad student or Paterno? We know the answer to that one, right?

And by going with Paterno's version, they let themselves off the hook, to a degree, so that they don't have to report the incident to the police but do tell Second Mile. Now, 9 years later, they remember the version Paterno told them because Paterno is the one with authority at that time and this time.

Maybe the problem comes down to Paterno keeping Sandusky from facing charges for his actions. This would fit with Paterno's actions allowing a player who was accused of rape in 2003 to play in a bowl game. And Paterno's attempt to minimize actions from another player accused of sexual assault in 2006.

If anyone shows a pattern of allowing abuse to occur without consequences, it's Paterno.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Perhaps

But I don't think Curley and Schultz hear two versions.

[RainDog]

73. none of it quite adds up

even your view that McQ didn't give a graphic version of events doesn't quite fit with the admins actions afterward.

if McQ downplayed the incident, why did the admins say they thought they had contacted child protective services (which they actually did not do.) Why did they contact Second Mile and take away Sandusky's key to the football facilities if they thought McQ wasn't talking about something that was actionable?

the only thing that seems to make sense to me (and, admittedly, the presentament isn't a full account of all testimony) is that the admins were trying to limit damage w/o putting Penn State in a position to face an investigation.

I think the Second Mile foundation was also aware of the problem and that's why two years of their records walked away when Sandusky did. I don't think it's really very conspiratorial to imagine someone removing documents that could implicate them in this scandal when we know about this happening over and over again in the Bush years, with Watergate, with whatsisname walking out with papers stuffed down his pants (guy in the Clinton admin) and so on. It's sort of s.o.p. for high profile criminal activity.

[RainDog]

74. Have you seen this? Another student claims another pedophile in another dept. was shielded

at just about the same time that the Sandusky incident occurred.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/penn-state-abuse-mclaughlin-neisworth-sandusky_n_1100086.html

"Paul McLaughlin alleges that he was sexually abused from 1977-81 by Jack Neisworth, a noted PSU professor in the field of child development who is known for work with autistic children. McLaughin... now 45 years old and living in Phoenix, claims to have elicited a confession from Neisworth in 2001, but has had his calls for the university to investigate flatly denied.

"I was treated with hostility, denials," McLaughlin told ABC News. "I was told that my complaints were hearsay despite the fact that I offered them tape-recorded evidence."

McLaughlin had no success persuading Penn State officials to investigate the respected professor during 2001 and 2002 -- a time span that includes the shower rape by Sandusky that then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary alleges to have witnessed. Did the same university officials handle both matters?

"They said they wouldn't be investigating anything of that nature, that Neisworth was a respected and important part of Penn State and, basically, how dare you make such an accusation," recalls McLaughlin."

[MADem]

39. Maybe not. People are allowed to be bullshitters, so long as they do not do it under oath.

All he has to do is say "I was ashamed of my inaction and was trying to mitigate it."

And then, there are the victims. They can probably give an accurate representation of what happened to them.

Once could be untrue, twice a conspiracy....but eight victims, forty events? Sandusky is nailed.

And without a police report, we can pretty much figure no one called any one of the boys in blue....particularly nowadays, when stuff is computerized as has been for a good twenty or more years.

[TorchTheWitch]

44. The Grand Jury report is not his full testimony

It is a very brief summary. It's rather concerning that people here seem to think it includes everything. As I mentioned elsewhere here, there were 40+ witnesses that testified and only a very scant handful of the witness testimony appear in the report. There is no mention whatsoever in the report about anything that Joe Paterno testified to, and one would think that what he testified to would be important enough to include in the report.

As McQuery said, these people are his friends and they know him. I find it extremely hard to believe that any of this friends would be throwing him under the bus without any solid evidence of anything. The most obvious scenario is that the friend was trying the help him by bringing forth the emails (there was more than one, by the way) rather than trying to "drop a dime" on him. It's his FRIEND.

I have no idea why anyone thinks that McQuery isn't credible. The Grand Jury found him extremely credible, and they're the ones in the position to know. Does anyone here seriously believe that he did not see what he claims to have seen???

The witch hunt on this one guy is incredible. Where's the witch hunt on the janitor, his supervisor and the co-workers he told of what he witnessed? Not a one of them reported anything to ANYONE but nobody here is falling all over themselves to crucify those people.

[MADem]

53. Look, I am not saying that McQueary is "to blame" here. He didn't rape those kids.

He was, however, part and parcel of that sick culture of football that put a stupid game and rich donors and hundreds of millions of dollars in income to the school ahead of the safety of little kids.

His friend didn't help him much, though, did he? The way this story has been dribbled out, it makes McQueary look like he is trying to justify his actions (or insufficiencies of action) to his friends, or, if your theory is the correct one, making his friend release the email to "prove" to strangers that he wasn't part of the problem, here.

I think McQueary is completely credible, FWIW. I think he may be overstating the case to his pals that he did all he could, but who among us is so brave that we'd toss our job out the window if we thought we could fix a problem another way? Further, he's not under oath when he's sending an email, so if he wants to characterize his conduct in slightly more heroic fashion than it may have actually been, so what? That's his issue, he is the one who has to live with the "Did you really do all you could have?" question when he is alone with himself. It doesn't mean that what he said happened did not happen.

I'm not "witch hunting" the guy. Of all of the assholes in this horrible, sordid tale, he's by far the nicest of the lot. I'm simply trying to suss out cause and effect, and sort out inconsistencies. It's all speculation at this stage anyway--on message boards, on TV, in the paper. No one "knows" much of anything yet, really, except that Sandusky is looking very much like a sick pervert and he was enabled or ignored for a long, long time.

[Eddie Haskell]

3. Records can be destroyed.

Maybe the report was never filed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Or maybe Mike McQueary is a liar

Right now, we have to believe that Mike McQueary is telling the truth both in his grand jury testimony and in the email (though the two seem to be contradictory) and, oh, while we're at it, we have to believe that an increasing number of other people are lying.

This is the SOLE witness for the prosecution in the perjury and failure to report charges against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

How's that case looking these days?

[thewiseguy]

26. Yea everybody is lying and Sandusky is not a pedophile

Is that what you are implying?

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Not at all

Since there are multiple witnesses beyond McQueary that put it on Sandusky.

McQueary, on the other hand, is the only witness against Curley and Schultz, so you probably don't want your only witness on a he said/he said perjury rap to be lying in public in so obvious a manner.

Sandusky has other witnesses against him. Curley and Schultz have only McQueary, and, quite frankly, I'm not finding him that credible. Defense attorneys should have a fine time discussing this email with him in cross-examination, in any case.

I'm saying (if) McQueary is lying, maybe Curley and Schultz were not lying about what he told them in 2002.

[ecstatic]

11. "email to a friend"

How did the email become public? His "friend" only made things worse, because now McQueary's going to have to admit that he was lying to save face.

[shanti]

30. a very RECENT email to a friend

so why is this plea that he did tell the police just coming out? because he caught much heat for not doing so, imo.

[Avalux]

13. It's possible he talked to a cop, the cop wrote stuff down, then threw it in the trash. n/t

[asjr]

15. Either that or a lot of hush money was involved.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Or maybe he's making it up

:shrug:

[Avalux]

17. Maybe! BUT if he's the only eyewitness...

and he's a liar, and the victim in the shower said nothing happened....

is Sandusky innocent? Gah - this whole thing is driving me nuts!

[RainDog]

21. Victims are witnesses too. And they have a lawyer representing them.

Also, because Sandusky appeared on tv, that appearance and the 17 seconds of hesitation it took him before he could say he was not sexually attracted to boys can be presented as is. Same with the remarks about all the kids he didn't abuse.

So, if I were a juror and I heard the acounts of abuse, saw that tv appearance, saw that the only time any action was taken on this was when Penn State didn't have a chance to intefere - what McQ saw or said isn't all that important.

because, frankly, McQ was part of the systemic problem as he continued to draw a salary and never again question if other children were being raped.

[Blasphemer]

27. Right... his victims will testify so any doubts about McQ won't affect the case against Sandusky

His lawyers must be utterly incompetent. There is a reason why those accused of certain crimes don't take the stand in court. They've allowed him to "take the stand" on national TV and his performance has bolstered the prosecution case.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. That's true for Sandusky, but not for Curley and Schultz

The only witness against them is McQueary. If McQueary is not credible, both those cases go bye-bye, and with it, the notion that PSU was actively covering up anything. The only case for a PSU cover-up resides in the 2002 incident. If the 2002 incident doesn't stand, the whole case for cover up falls apart with it. I'm not even clear how they put McQueary on the stand in the Curley and Schultz cases after this email episode. And if Sandusky's lawyer isn't bluffing about Victim #2 being who they say he is, and backing Sandusky's version, then there really is no there there on Victim 2 or the claims of cover up.

[RainDog]

36. what has Sandusky's lawyer said about victim 2? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Apparently

the lawyer is letting on that they know who Victim #2 is, that they're gonna call him, and that he's going to say nothing happened. This was Amendola's suggestion in the interview.

[RainDog]

52. Was this the one Sandusky and his wife were trying to contact before the GJ testimony?

I could go look it up myself. I think that was on the last page of the report. I forget which victim.

I didn't see that part of the lawyer's interview.

I kind of don't think that lawyer has too much going for him. I could be wrong.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. No

The prosecutors don't know who Victim #2 (from the McQueary witnessed incident) is. Nobody does, except - if they're to be believed - Amendola and Sandusky.

[NashVegas]

47. It Goes Beyond That

Find the portion that didn't air ...

[RainDog]

20. McQ was, basically, telling the person who got the email to make it public

when he said... "Do with this what you want"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/11/15/penn-state-mcqueary-sandusky.ap/index.html

"I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me."

Added McQueary: "Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions."

...McQueary's remarks in the email to his friend came less than a day after former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's admission that he showered with and "horsed around" with boys stunned legal observers. Sandusky's comments, they said, could be used by prosecutors trying to convict him of child sex abuse charges.

...The case apparently took on new urgency three years ago, when a woman complained to officials at her local school district that Sandusky had sexually assaulted her son. School district officials banned Sandusky from school grounds and contacted police, leading to an investigation by state police, the attorney general's office and a grand jury.

This last paragraph is the most damning of all for the University. The ONLY TIMES anyone looked into Sandusky's behavior was when the behavior came to the attention of authorities outside of the reach of Penn State.

The 2 times Sandusky was investigated were the times when high schools were the origin of the complaints.

I hope the Penn St. football program is SHUT DOWN FOREVER. Let that be the legacy of this sort of corruption.

[mzteris]

22. so he "made sure it was stopped"

then left the kid in the room with the guy?

He didn't take the kid to seek medical attention?

[RainDog]

23. as I noted yesterday - to me, he's exaggerating to make himself look better

the grand jury report mentioned an earlier incident at a high school. a coach found Sandusky in close contact but not having sex. face to face, lying down in a secluded room in the gym area. Sandusky jumped up and said they were practicing wrestling moves.

So, what I think happened is that Sandusky stopped raping the kid b/c the kid and Sandusky both made eye contact with McQ. Of course Sandusky stopped.

That's NOTHING like stopping a rape.

That's a rapist reacting to getting caught.

And he immediately left, without the child, called his own daddy, who told him to come home, and he did. He contacted Paterno the next day.

McQ is just trying to make himself look better. Which makes him look worse. He should just stfu.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. He's exaggerating something

That's for sure.

[RainDog]

35. you don't think he ever told the admins it was rape, right?

however, as I mentioned before, EVEN IF he didn't say "rape," HOW could the admins, who had prior knowledge of another incident, not investigate this?

and, considering THEY DID take action by disallowing Sandusky, by warning the foundation - how can you square the knowledge of those actions by claiming the admins didn't know, or just thought.. oh, that weird Jerry, horseplaying around...

to me, the admins actions speak of a cover up. the did just enough to protect themselves without blowing the whistle on Jerry b/c, frankly, they didn't care about those children who were being abused compared to the value they placed upon Penn State.

This is the point: none of those men thought those children mattered enough to upset their world.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. I think that could be hindsight

Why do they ban children from campus: because they don't want to deal with Jerry's shit anymore. They could very well ban Sandusky from bringing children to campus and still believe that these episodes are just misinterpretations of Jerry's weirdness. Why? The same reason people do things in most organizations: it's a fucking headache to deal with Jerry's weirdness and these endless fucking meetings. Why do they tell Second Mile: all they tell Second Mile is that Sandusky is banned from bringing kids to campus. This sort of stuff can be so easily misconstrued, Jack. Enough already. of course, with hindsight, we see the worst possible interpretation and motivations behind everything. But most fuck-ups in organizations are just that: fuck ups. People are rarely as diabolical as hindsight makes them out to be. That's what my life experience tells me.

This doesn't strike me as cover up so much as it does mishandling with very limited information.

[RainDog]

51. I agree that most fuck ups are just that

However, that doesn't really negate the idea (and, you know, it's not like someone has to state this - it's just part of the systemic abuse of power by those who have it and don't realize how they mistreat others) that the Penn State program mattered more than the well being of kids to these people.

You know, way back in 1998 and 2002 we had already, as a society, decided that sexual abuse of children was a big deal and there were already guidelines in place to deal with the same.

I guess I find it hard to believe these guys were so "deaf" to the language of pedophiles that they had no clue, particularly b/c of the earlier incident - which Schultz knew about. As a parent, as a mother, I would never have taken such incidents as a nothing moment - but maybe that's because of my own earlier experience with creepy old men who just joke around inappropriately with kids.

To this day when I think about the father of a friend of mine when I was a kid, the thought makes my skin crawl. His inappropriateness was clear to me when I was 8 years old. He didn't rape me, btw. But his lack of boundaries was clear to me even then and I didn't even know about sex. When I was older I realized what was going on with him. I've never forgotten him either. Mostly now I wonder if he sexually abused his daughter. After I spent the night at her house, I never went back. But I was 8. I didn't tell anyone, I just knew I didn't like him and knew to keep away from him. I had contact with him one other time when he was taking a bunch of kids someplace and his actions then were also totally inappropriate. Not in a sexual way. But in a way that demonstrated someone who was not to be trusted with kids. He scared me then, too.

I just find it hard to understand how an adult cannot have some sort of... ability to sense this same sort of person.

But maybe that's why I find the two admin's stories so implausible when I knew enough, through my own survival instincts, to remove myself from the presence of a person, that they didn't know enough to protect children.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. I think it probably happens like this

Consider a person you know who just has an awkward social sense. They can't even have a basic conversation without seeming to insult people. At first, you hate this person, because you think he or she is really insulting you. But as you get to know them, you realize it's just a thing: the person has a good heart, but a lack of social sense, a poor instinct for social boundaries. From time to time other friends of yours complain: "Your friend jane is a real piece of work." No, you say, listen, she's just like that. She doesn't mean any harm. And you believe that.

I think this is the way Curley and Schultz could be read as thinking of Sandusky. Nothing came of the 1998 investigation. He's still there with Second Mile. He's still at the events. He's still hanging around with all the kids. So maybe it was, like with your friend Jane, just a big misunderstanding. If McQueary comes to you with a very soft version of his story, Jerry was showering with some kid and it just weirded me, then it's just more of the same, Jane annoying somebody else. But if Jane worked for you, and it was clients, you might say "OK, no more client-facing communications. Done." But you don't really think she means any harm.

There are two interpretations, I think, available, that would explain Curley and Schultz response in 2002. In one, they are malevolently indifferent. They know he's raping kids and they don't care. In the other, they are fuck ups with limited information and a mistaken perception of Sandusky. They think the whole thing is a misunderstanding and they just don't want to deal with this shit anymore. To me, the second version makes more sense, especially as McQueary becomes less and less credible with these statements.

[RainDog]

60. have you read this article from the NYTimes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=all

it goes into greater detail about the 1998 incident - and the reality that, at Penn State, it would be very unlikely for Sandusky's priors to be unknown to his bosses.

[RainDog]

61. ...

"Some investigators said they were convinced that the idea that Sandusky had an inappropriate interest in, and relationships with, young boys was a fairly widely held suspicion around and even outside Penn State’s football program over the years.

“This was not the secret that they are trying to make out now,” one person involved in the inquiry said. “I know there were a number of college coaches that had heard the rumors. If all these people knew about it, how could Sandusky’s superiors not know?"

this is where I think the reality lies.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Everyone thinks your friend Jane is an asshole

But we know she's not.

The logic is the same. Besides, everyone's recollection is 100% when they know the whole story, right? "Oh, yes, we always knew..."

In any case, all the "rumors" reflect is that people knew about the 1998 investigation, which not even Schultz denies. If somebody is investigated for this sort of thing, of course rumors abound. Nobody's claiming that they weren't aware of the 1998 case. They just didn't think it went anywhere, which it didn't.

Could go a bunch of different ways, is the point.

[RainDog]

66. I agree it's not absolutely settled

I didn't know until I read that article that records from Second Mile during the time when the McQ witnessed abuse occurred cannot be located. and, yeah, that could also be one more of those typical-of-institutions fuck ups. but the timing of those missing records sure is convenient.

I will definitely follow this trial because I want to hear what people have to say when they're questioned.

you know, this is another thing about that friend, Jane. sometimes when everyone thinks she's an asshole - she really is an asshole. sometimes when your asshole friend Jane is accused of things, you have to take them seriously, even when you're busy.

I guess this is the thing, for me. If everyone thought my friend Jane was an asshole, and the reasons were so serious, I wouldn't just blow off those people. Especially when the reasons have to do with a crime against vulnerable kids.

So, even with the "my friend Jane is an asshole" defense - I don't buy it as anything other than negligence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. I agree

That Jane is perhaps really an asshole. In this case, clearly she is. :-)

I wouldn't go so far as negligence, though, even if it is a massive fuck up.

It will all depend on what information people had and whether that information was actionable. Obviously, a case can be made that any information in this vein is actionable. But I think a case can also be made for vagueness and mishandling that is surely a fuck-up, but not yet negligence. To be even-handed here, I'll also say that a case can be made for malevolent indifference, and if the facts work out that way, I'll be the first one to say "I thought it wouldn't go that way, but it did."

[Blasphemer]

25. What a piss poor CYA attempt

I mean, c'mon, there is no way he would not have told this version to the grand jury if it were true. If the police were involved and nothing happened, that would have completely changed the complexion of the case.

[TorchTheWitch]

37. with Shultz the head of the police dept and in on the cover up I can see

why there wouldn't be a report. There's certainly nothing new about police departments all over the country "losing" important records and evidence.

With Shultz in control of the police department and him being part of the big cover-up I have little reason to believe the police concerning anything about this matter.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Records nothing: McQueary is claiming he "had discussions with police"

So, it's easy enough for McQueary to tell the prosecutors precisely who these police were. If they are in on your imagined cover-up, the investigation can proceed from there. Just be aware that you're now adding one more party to the cove-up, which is to say, one more person who we'd have to think was lying before we believe McQueary is telling the truth. How many more people do we have to believe are lying, do you think, before perhaps we consider the possibility that it is McQueary himself lying?

Ten? A hundred? A thousand?

[Octafish]

42. Whatever happened to the State Prosecutor handling the case? He should know.

Oh, yeah. Ray Gricar disappeared seven years ago.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. Ray Gricar was the county prosecutor (the DISTRICT attorney) for Centre County

He was not a "state prosecutor." Good knowledge of the case on that.

Besides, Gricar never handled the 2002 case at all. The only one claiming it was reported to police is McQueary. Every law enforcement agency in the county is denying he did that. But I guess they're all lying, too.

[Octafish]

71. Outstanding catch! My mistake -- Gricar was a county and not a state prosecutor.

From the article I linked above, Former Penn State Coach Prosecutor Center of Missing Man Mystery, Gricar's fellow county prosecutor said Gricar must not have had enough evidence to prosecute.

As for who's lying, the record's clear no one in authority protected children from the predator at Penn State. Dude.

[dballance]

48. I Used to be a Fraternity Advisor and they had a rape at a party

The boys did everything right. When the girl made the accusation they closed the house and called the campus police. Yes, they called the police. They called the national fraternity and let them know there was a horrible incident that happened.

The offender was put out of the fraternity - as he should have been. I'm sorry for the girl. There can never be any recompense for her experience.

Because the fraternity men acted in the most moral way they could no charges or damages were brought against the chapter. They didn't try to hide anything, they were all about doing the right thing and protecting the girl who was abused.

That is the sort of behavior we were all taught as members of the fraternity. It is gratifying to see young men actually act that way. I'm so proud of them for calling the police in an event that could have closed their chapter. They were more concerned about doing what was right for the victim than what might happen to their chapter.

So McQuery, you CAN do the right thing even if you think it might have a huge cost.

[Ganja Ninja]

72. Given the fact that there were 2 prior attempts to get the police to investigate Sandusky ...

that went nowhere I'm not surprised that a report can't be found. It doesn't mean somebody didn't try to file one.