Were the attorneys ever confronted or called out in any way for anything about how they handled the accusers?
Ex PSU player Justin Williams with Ziegler
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
No. All that was done was negotiations over what would or wouldn't be paid and that was the end of it.
Joe's account ten years after his conversation with McQueary. Would it surprise you if, before his testimony, he got together with McQueary for a refresher?
I think Joe was a man of integrity, so yes, it would surprise me if he testified to a grand jury about his memory of events that he didn't remember, and instead was spoon-feeding stuff that Mike wanted him to say.
Not to mention the fact that if everything that happened was normal, why did Spanier/Curley/Schultz want to get Jerry help for his non-existent problem, and/or were worried about what might happen if they didn't report this normal event?
Obviously Joe was concerned about what happened and wanted to get the info to Curley and the others.
🏌️suspensoir/ der tiefschutz to give it up already.Its been a long time since i followed this story but at one point i was really up on it. I seem to remember an email from curley saying "after talking it over with Joe" he was uncomfortable going to the police. Freeh took that to mean that Joe talked Curley out of it. But there are many other possible explanations. I thought Curley claimed in his trial that he did not remember his conversation with Joe, which is a little hard to believe. Unless Curley comes clean, we'll never know. Also i seem to remember that curley questioned sandusky and was told that nothing happened and volunteered to let curley talk to the kid from the shower, but curley, being uncomfortable with whole thing, declined.
I was curious about the process used to locate victims and and finalize the payments.
The talking it over with Joe was actually a hand scrawled note which had nothing to do with supposed abuse. It actually was questioning the liability of allowing kids to use the facilities.
Anyone could come forward and allege abuse. The victim attorneys then negotiated for amounts. The sickest thing was paying Jer's adopted son, which had nothing to do with abuse. This was simply to buy him off and change his testimony from supporting Jer to making baseless allegations.
I think most people believe he had issues. That doesn't mean Joe, Curley, Shultz, and Spanier knew he was sexually assaulting kids and intentionally covered it up.
But their memories were repressed and it took lawyers with profit motives to refresh their memories.
Well, if you read the posts from the Free Jerry crowd, they don't think he had issues unfortunately.
Joe/Curley/Shultz/Spanier didn't handle things well and their response was lacking...but I'm entirely convinced that they didn't intentionally cover anything up (just really bad judgment in the end).
MM's father testified that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Dranov testified that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Joe said MM didn't say it was sexual assault and MM admitted as much.
Curley testified that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault.
Shultz testified that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault.
I can't help but to conclude that MM didn't tell anybody about sexual assault. My best guess is that he told them about something he heard that seemed inappropriate but none of the key figures understood that to be sexual assault.
That doesn't mean it was handled properly. MM's report and any subsequent investigation/response should have been well documented. I think they handled it outside of normal university procedures because it was Jerry. That's wrong and it came back to bite them in the rear.
His significant other told detectives MM never told her about any sex attack.
Who said anything about "spoon feeding?" Pretty obvious that around the time of Joe's testimony he was already in decline. For all of his virtues, Joe was also incredibly vain and probably didn't want to look like a doddering fool on the stand. Where did "fondling" come from? Don't recall McQueary using the term and who was fondling whom? While I can't say that it happened, I would not be surprised if Joe and McQueary compared notes prior to Joe's testimony.
I don't recall raising the subject of Curley's, Schultz's, or Spanier's motivations. Curley was out of his depth and Spanier simply fcuked up.
The range of actions that Joe could have been "concerned" about is undefined. Tim Curley is not the obvious candidate to turn to on something criminal.
"issues" is underselling what he did. My comment had nothing to do with anyone other than Sandusky. People are defending him because the incorrectly believe that helps the legacy of Joe.
Don't forget detectives who coached victims in what to say. This was the worst run LE effort I've ever seen, from questioning victims, to ignoring the shredder trucks at TSM. Awful and shameful.
Don't leave out the Clinton and Centre County car dealers. They did ok too.
Life has a way of sorting itself out.
Mike M extorted an extra $5 mil (pre-tax) from PSU but that doesn’t last long after you pay Uncle Sam and your ex-wife in the form of alimony and child support.
There’s a reason he resides in a less than impressive townhouse.
I'm highly confident that MM expressed concern about JS doing inappropriate things with kids. I'm equally confident that he didn't tell Dad, Dranov, Joe, C, S, or S about rape or any serious type of sexual assault.
I don't know what JS did or didn't do. I'm pretty sure that a number of the so called victims fabricated or embellished their stories. I don't rule out that some of them might have been telling the truth.
The bold is enough for me and which is why everyone should have done more (though, to clarify, Joe met his legal obligation)
Jerry was a pedophile--denying that is delusional at this point IMO but to each their own.
Thankfully he's in jail and no longer a danger to others.
Last edited:
McQueary called his father from inside the facility and went over to his father's house after speaking with him on the phone and leaving the facility. He never told his father, Dranov, JVP, Schultz or Curley that he saw anything, let alone sexual assault. He told them all he HEARD things which concerned him. Hearing something you think could be be something concerning is not "eyewitnessing" what the Presentment claimed. McQueary himself sent an email to the Prosecutor specifically statating that he absolutely did not SEE what the Presentment claimed he reported he saw - McQueary categorically denied he SAW anthing of the kind and "Never told anyone he did" for Pete's sake - a statement by McQueary that included the Prosecutor, police investigators, JVP, Schultz, Curley or anyone else. Again, his email letter to the Prosecutor, and AG's Office, categorically stated that he (MM) "NEVER told anyone that he SAW" what is claimed he reported he saw in the AG's Presentment.
Speculating about noises you hear and what they might possibly be is not "eyewitnessing" those speculated things. The Presentment made up the claims of MM "eyewitnessing" sexual assault as McQueary himself made clear.
I (and most that have taken the time to look at this) can agree that MM didn't see the "anal rape" that was claimed in the trumped up presentment. However, people get a little loose with the "MM definitely didn't see a sexual assault"...he walked in on a child molester alone with a naked young boy in a shower of a building that was presumed to be otherwise empty. That is in and of itself MM witnessing child sexual abuse. (and I'll note that the jury agreed with all of that, both on the lack of anal rape, and the assault that did occur that night)
So what did he see that constitutes "sexual abuse" and why wasn't that articulated? I'll concede that McQueary saw Sandusky showering with a young boy and, given the context, that was disturbing.. But if you're going to rake Joe, Curley, and Schultz over the coals for not reporting something then you have to know what that something was.
At a bare minimum, Jerry getting the kid to get naked with him in a shower in an empty building is child sexual abuse in that situation. That was certainly very well articulated, and everyone understood that part of the situation.
And I'm certainly not going to (or ever have) rake any of Joe/Tim/Gary/Graham over the coals...they should have done more, but they didn't know what to do exactly. They had an opportunity to stand up, be leaders and make some tough decisions, but instead they gave Jerry the benefit of the doubt and hoped that it was another one-off incident. I feel they were punished too harshly for their lack of judgment (it wasn't a cover up, wasn't criminal...they just didn't do what they could/should have done in that situation). The hope is that some good came out of this and future leaders in similar situations learned the pitfalls of trying to handle it on your own or giving the benefit of the doubt.
A good defensive coordinator? A charitable, religious man? A victim of overzealous prosecution?
By Law and NCAA rules, Joe was required to do nothing more. Curly and Schultz were not mandated reporters, nor was Joe. That responsibility rested with Mike's dad and Dranov.
Given Mike's half-assed story, no one was sure anything happened.
Last edited:
The greatest individual failing in all of this- hands down- was on Mike McQueary. If he actually witnessed child sexual abuse, he should have reported it. He didn’t need to consult anybody if he saw that. If he didn’t see anything but suspected it, he should have reported it. He was a grown man at this point, not some 18-year old freshman. If he saw something and relayed to people in a way that they didn’t understand the severity of the situation, that’s on him for not being able to articulate it well enough. And if he did articulate it well enough that he knew they should have done something and they didn’t, then he should have gone to other authorities. Somewhere along the way this became about Joe and the admins, but so much of this rests (heavily, I’m sure) on McQueary’s shoulders.
Really? Disturbing, yes. Criminal? You're going to have to find a citation to support that.
"Should have done more?" That depends on what McQueary told them (and he never spoke with Spanier directly, btw). Let's examine that. He never expressed to his father and Dr. Dranov that he witnessed sexual abuse. He hedged on what he described to Joe. But then we are to believe that he described it to Curley and Schultz in no uncertain terms? A college graduate in his mid-20s who supposedly witnessed something heinous and didn't think, as another poster suggested, to go directly to the police? Someone, who after his report to Curley and Schultz, never bothered to follow up on it or discuss it with anyone else.......for ten years! You may love him, but to me his credibility is schit.
The shower is running, steamy, but you thought you heard "slapping" sounds. Super hearing ?
He was one of those things
You aren't charitable when using charity to gain access to potential victims
More incredulous, after hearing slapping sounds for maybe three seconds, McQ immediately concluded that anal sex was occurring. Shower water falling on a tile flow sure sounds like slapping. The boy was allegedly in no distress whatsoever. That whole situation is shady as can be.