Tuesday, August 28, 2012

A $10,000 challenge to the media to put their money where their mouth is on the Freeh Report.

Journalists are paid to gather and report the news and do it as accurately as possible. Once upon a time in journalism a reporter had to get a peice of information corroborated by at least one and sometimes two or three indpendent sources before a news orgranization would go with the story.
No more.

This was clearly evidenced with the media and their Joe Paterno and Penn State/Sandusky stories most of which got just about every "fact" wrong, were based on assumptions and what they thought would get the biggest audience, not what was true, and then made it worse when they rolled over and played dead for the Freeh Report, writing stories about the report as if it actually had presented facts that substantiated it's conclusions when it didn't even come close and in many cases fabricated "facts" that the media and those who believe them, swallowed as true.

It's not the first time the media has caused untold damage because of shoddy reporting ( we went to war helped by the false reporting by Judith Miller and the New York Times over Sadaam's non-existant WMD), and this is no exception since the very accreditation of a great university is in danger of being lost, along with a lot of other things as a result of a report that is in every way, dishonest and factually corrpupt but which the news media gave credence. As a result, lazy grandstanding bureaucrats like Mark Emmert of the NCAA and Rodney Erickson, the new president of Penn State, acted on the report but more because of the credence and publicity given to it by the media.

Now a Freeh Report skeptic has issued these same journalists a challenge:  He has offered to pay $10,000 to any news organization or to any charity they designate if Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are convicted of the charges against them, charges of which they have already been convicted by the media.. If after hearing all the evidence they are acquitted by a jury,  then those journalists or their news organizations who were so quick to treat the Freeh Report as fact, would in turn pay $10,000.

Given that it was the conclusions drawn by the Freeh Report on the actions of Curley, Schultz  and Spanier ( and Paterno) that was  the basis for the NCAA sanctions,  there is no reason why journalists who want to stand by his or her story wouldn't want to make $10,000 for charity and put their money, and integrity where their mouth is. Unless they have no confidence in either.

But one would think that any journalist, like those at Deadspin.com who were one of the most vocal, and certain of their position regarding the guilt of Paterno and others, ( without facts, naturally)  as well as journalists for ESPN, Sean Gregory at Time magazine, Roland Martin at CNN and more,  would take up the challenge for the sake of charity and  to stand up for their own integrity and journalistic competence.

If any do, it will be reported here. And, if  as expected, none do that will be reported here too.

More information on the challenge and the PR release related to it, can be found by clicking this link.


Anonymous said...

"As evidenced with Joe Paterno and the Penn State/Sandusky stories most of which got just about every "fact" wrong"

Just about every fact wrong is a big statement. I feel like that is the kind of statement that should be backed up with facts but, as always, there are no links to support the claim. As I have said before, I am not saying you are wrong; I would just like to see what you are basing this on.

"and how the media rolled over and played dead with the Freeh Report, writing stories based on the report as if it had actually presented facts that substantiated."

Again, I know you (and likely Linda) will find some way to say "SEE! YOU PROVED MARC'S POINT!". But, if you are up to it, please provide a link where one of Freeh's conclusions is reported by the media as fact and not followed with something like "according to the report". It is my $0 challenge to you.

Also, if you are going to go after the media, please don't lead the paragraph by calling out journalists at deadspin. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on that site knows it is a humor/opinion blog with the motto "SPORTS NEWS WITHOUT ACCESS, FAVOR, OR DISCRETION". That would be like going after someone at theonion.com for not actually being "America's Finest News Source".


Anonymous said...

Thanks Marc. MC (above) has demonstrated in other posts an inability to read the articles and Spanier report that show how flawed the Freeh report is. If one looks at Marc's multiple blogs on this web site (Marc has done a good job of showing the media's allegations, Feeeh's allegations, and has shown misperceptions and conflicting evidence through the entire affair) and the articles on the Framing Paterno site ( they are not all great, and MC will no doubt quote one or two that might not be that great) but they should be read as they provide a lot of insight and demonstrate the flaws presented by various reports over the last 10 months.

I look forward to more information being released in the upcoming trials and hopefully more information being released by Spanier's lawyers as well, because the problem with this case has been how fast it moved without all the facts. The Grand Jury was a prosecutors report and the Freeh report was a prosecutors report. They were one sided and their goal was clearly to convict Sandusky and convict the other four both criminal proceedings and in the court of public opinion.

I want to know the truth, and to get the truth I want much more information than has been provided so far. I want the accused to have the ability to defend themselves and see what their defenses provide before I am willing to agree that a grand conspiracy occurred. People like MC made up their mind a long time ago and will never change their opinion no matter what information is released.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"MC (above) has demonstrated in other posts an inability to read the articles and Spanier report that show how flawed the Freeh report is."

I have also demonstrated in other posts that nowhere, in any argument, did I use a single one of Freeh's conclusions to back my comments.

Furthermore, I posted on the Poll's post that a number of media outlets who were covering the comments and report from Spanier's lawyers. When I did that, I posted links and named television shows that covered the "other" side of the story. I also noted how stories that covered the release of Freeh's report said things like "according to the report".

All I asked above and in other posts is for evidence to back these media claims. Marc is trying to keep the media honest with his posts. I am trying to keep Marc honest with mine. The fact that people keep getting this defensive over a simple request to post one article to back their claim is a bit frustrating.

Anonymous said...
"People like MC made up their mind a long time ago and will never change their opinion no matter what information is released."

Did McQueary tell Paterno and the other PSU leaders about what happened between Sandusky and Victim 2 in the PSU locker room shower? Did Sandusky get convicted on 4 of 5 counts relating to Victim 2 that were mainly backed by McQueary's testimony? Did ANY of those men (McQueary included) go to the police? Did Marc and others try to spin going to Schultz as "police" because he was "head of police services" when his real title was VP of Business and Finance and he oversaw eight different departments? Did Freeh actually "decline" to interview guys like Curley, Schultz and Paterno, or were they advised by their legal counsel to do so?

As always, an answer to a question or a link to an article would be great. An attack on me and all zero words I used from the Freeh report to back my side of the argument are expected.


Anonymous said...

Based on McQueary's own statements, his statement to Dranov, the fact Dranov did not contact law enforcement, mcQuearys dad did not contact law enforcement, the fact McQueary did nothing to stop the incident, it seems clear that he likely referred to the shower incident as a form of horseplay. Sandusky was not convicted of that count and the jury may very well have had trouble with his credibility.

Regarding the media showing the other side of the story, that is humorous at best. When they covered Spanier's statements they barely even referred to the details in the Spanier Report (which is very well done). Further, I have seen almost no follow up since that day except to see opinions that Spanier is a liar and that he has opened himself up to criminal prosecution.

Freeh did not interview McQueary and others and as soon as the A.G. filed criminal charges against Schultz and Curley (have you ever questioned why the A.G. Did that but did not file against Dranov or Paterno when their stories and McQueary's show that McQueary is likely a liar) the A.G. knew they would basically be precluded from discussing the case at great length. The A.G. wanted to bolster their case against Sandusky, wanted McQueary to appear to be credible (even though they know he is not) and wanted Curley and Schultz to look like liars so McQueary's testimony could not be hammered at the Sandusky Trial. Why didn't the A.G., if they are so concerned over the law, file against Dranov and McQueary's father since they are doctors and mandated reporters of child molest?

As Marc Rubin has shown over and over again, the press has generally taken the grand jury presentment and Freeh Report as gospel, when they should not have.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"it seems clear that he likely referred to the shower incident as a form of horseplay. Sandusky was not convicted of that count and the jury may very well have had trouble with his credibility."

"it seems clear"... Sounds a little less credible than "convicted in a court of law". Who used the term "horseplay" besides the men on trial for perjury and failing to report child abuse?

Sandusky was convicted on the other 4 counts relating to Victim 2 and McQueary's testimony, so his credibility must not have been a huge issue. How can you assume McQueary's credibility is an issue when he was all they had and victim 2 did not testify? I read a solid article on framingpaterno that poked holes in how the grand jury presented the McQueary testimony. I have not heard any arguments with his testimony at the Sandusky trial, however.

"Regarding the media showing the other side of the story, that is humorous at best. When they covered Spanier's statements they barely even referred to the details in the Spanier Report"


I posted that in the other thread. About 1,000 words covering the story initially. OTL also covered this for about 7-8 minutes right after the statements were released. The same AP article is on a number of other sites as well. Not sure what is so humorous about that coverage. As for the no follow up - that's the 24-hour news cycle for ya.

As for the paragraph about the attorney general - I really don't know what to say. Seems like a well thought out scenario but purely hypothetical at this point. Is there any evidence out there to suggest this?


Anonymous said...

One of the Jurors actually said he and other jurors had trouble with McQueary's testimony. I believe juror's last name was Harper.

Regarding inability to poke holes at McQueary's testimony, that will be done at the trials of Curley and Schltz and has been done by McQueary's own testimony, as that of Dranov. Schultz and Curley were unable to do so at that hearing because of the criminal charges against them and fact they were not parties to that action and had no standing to participate. Sandusky's lawyers were forced to trial in record time (I have never seen a case with so many serious criminal charges rushed to trial so fast against the requests of defense counsel.That clearly hampered their ability to prepare their defense and do the investigation they should have been allowed to prepare). They are unable to testify until their case is over, which is likely the reason the A.G. filed the charges against them when they did.

Look at McQueary's testimony at the Grand Jury vs the testimony he gave at the Sandusky Trial. Look at his own explanations of what he reported to Paterno vs how he testified at the Sandusky Trial.

Regarding "it seems clear" has to do with my own opinions rather than trying to apply any legal standard. (I am well aware of legal standards, and when they apply to various aspects of trials, even if you are not). It does seem clear that McQueary's story has changed and he likely downplayed what he saw (call it horseplay or no, there is a big difference between full molestation and what McQueary seems to have told Dranov and Paterno and likely the others, which seemes more in line with horseplay).

Regarding convicted in a court of law, the charges and facts against Sandusky are so different than the charges against Schultz and Curley that comparing them is almost impossible. So I can certainly use the term "seems clear" when looking at McQueary's statements, his own inactions,the stories told by Dranov, Paterno etc...without having to use legal terminology.

Regarding your espn site reference, that proves nothing. Look at the treatment in the reports and stories rather than the fact that they referred to the Spanier Report. The treatment is completely different. You should be able to admit that but you will not.

Anonymous said...

"Sandusky was convicted on the other 4 counts relating to Victim 2and McQueary's testimony, so his credibility must not have been a huge issue. How can you assume McQueary's credibility is an issue when he was all they had and victim 2 did not testify? I read a solid article on framingpaterno that poked holes in how the grand jury presented the McQueary testimony. I have not heard any arguments with his testimony at the Sandusky trial, however."

MC is absolutely right but he ignores the argument of Joe's defenders that the jury did NOT believe MM and convicted on the other four counts solely due to the overwhelming evidence with respect to the OTHER victims. You see, MC, if you could read the jurors' minds the way Joe's defenders can, you wouldn't place such ridiculous weight on the jurors' actual verdicts.

MC, you probably also think that when Joe testified, as to what MM told him, to the grand jury that "It was a sexual nature", that Joe meant that "It was a sexual nature". But as any of Joe's defenders would tell you (because they can read Joe's mind), Joe actually meant "It was horseplay".

As frustrating as it can be to have a rational discussion with clairvoyants, I find that the most alarming practice of Joe's defenders, e.g., some of Marc's colleagues at framingpaterno is their reliance on sources which not only lack credibility but which are deeply, DEEPLY disturbing. This is particularly galling when Marc rants on and on about people being idiots for relying on the media. He doesn't seem to have a credibility problem with the APPALLING sources featured by his colleagues at framingpaterno .

Anonymous said...

The above comment really does not deserve any response, but here goes.

I do not have to read the juror's minds or be clairvoyant to state that the jurors had trouble with McQueary, as one juror publicly disclosed that the jurors had trouble with McQueary's testimony. It does not take a genius to analyze that.

Additionally, anyone can read McQueary's testimony, the stories he told, the fact he did nothing to stop a molest in action, the fact that many others recounted his stories in the same fashion (including Paterno, whom the Grand Jury found to be credible, so according to your brilliant logic, Paterno could not have been involved in a coverup because the jury found him to have been a credible witness), the fact that 2 veteran doctors did not report the incident...to see that there are real questions about what MM saw and what he reported.

Regarding Sandusky being convicted, if you believe the other wtinesses personal testimony about being molested did not affest the jury at all with respect to the other allegations, then you are not only not clairvoyant, but absolutely brain dead.

Regarding the sources which lack credibility and are deeply disturbing, who are you referring to? What is so DISTURBING about questioning this case, how it has proceeded, and what the truth is? Of course there are documents on the framingpaterno web site that are not very convincing, but a lot of the material there is also compelling and make me want answers to what happened and who could have done more to stop Sandusky.

It is equally disturbing to not question what has happened to the individuals in this case, as well as how some individuals and some agencies have not been questioned for their lack of action in stopping a child predator.

How can you speak of rational?

Anonymous said...

The jurors had so much trouble with MM's testimony that they convicted Jerry on four Victim 2 counts SOLELY on the basis of that testimony. There was no other Victim 2 evidence presented to the jury. You can SPECULATE about what went through the jurors' minds but we only KNOW what they said in their verdicts. Joe's defenders go on and on about how the Freeh Report couldn't "hold up" in a court of law. Well, MM's testimony "held up" in a court of law.

I would list the titles of some of the works written by one of the sources featured in Marc's partner website, Second Mile Sandusky Scandal, but I'm reluctant to do so as it might offend some of Marc's readers. I know that they offended me.

Anonymous said...

You said nothing.

Anonymous said...

There IS nothing to say except what MM said under oath and what the jury said in its verdicts. Everything else is speculation. THAT'S THE POINT.

Anonymous said...

Foolish statement. YOUR POINT IS LAME.

Anonymous said...


"The boy was up against the wall, facing the wall, his hands maybe shoulder height on the wall. And Jerry was directly behind him in a very, very, very close position with Jerry's hands wrapped around his waist or midsection. I couldn't see his actual hands, but his arms were wrapped around."

"Q At the conclusion of seeing this the second time, could you explain to the Court what did you believe you were witnessing?
A Jerry molesting the boy.
Q In what fashion when you say molesting the boy?
A Having some type of intercourse with him. That's what I believe I saw."

"Q What did you tell him? (McQueary's father on the phone immediately after)
A I said I just saw Coach Sandusky in the
showers with a boy and what I saw was wrong and sexual and I needed some advice quickly."

"Q And what was the decision?
A After long discussion and input and
things, it was to call Joe Paterno who was the head coach and as soon as I possibly could and tell him what I saw."

"Q Describe what you did. (at Paterno's next morning)
A I went over to his house, sat at his
kitchen table and told him that I had saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower and that it was way over the lines. It was extremely sexual in nature and I thought I needed to tell him about it."

"Q Did you describe for him the positioning of Jerry and the boy?
A The rough positioning I would have described but not in very much detail."

"A Yes, I did.
Q Did you make it clear that there was a
young boy?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you make it clear where this
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you make it clear that this was --
the acts that you observed were sexual?
A Without a doubt.
Q Would you have ever used the term sodomy
with Coach Paterno?
A No, never.
Q Would you have ever used the term anal
intercourse with Coach Paterno? A Never.
Q Why?
A Out of respect and just not getting into detail with someone like Coach Paterno, I would not have done it.
Q What was your intention in talking with him?
A My intention in talking to him is, one, he's the head coach and he needs to know if things happen inside that program and inside that building; and, two, I saw something that was, in my opinion, outrageous and terrible, and I thought he needed to know about it right away. He deserved to know about it."

"Q Did Coach Paterno give you any sort of responses to the information that you were telling him?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A First, when you say responses, he was
shocked and saddened, kind of slumped back in his chair. He said, well, I'm sorry you had to see that. It's terrible. And he said, I need to think and tell some people about what you saw and I'll let you know what -- what we'll do next."

"Q The phone call that you received from
Mr. Curley, about how long after the Friday night incident in the Lasch Building or the Saturday morning discussion you had with Joe Paterno did that occur?
A I think it was nine or ten days."


Anonymous said...

"Q Did you describe for Mr. Curley and
Mr. Schultz the body positioning of the individuals in the shower?
A Yes, I would have given them a rough idea, yes.
Q When you say a rough idea?
A I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity behind a young boy with his arms wrapped around him.
Q Did you describe for them any sounds that you heard?
A Yes, I would have said I heard slapping sounds. I did say that.
Q Did you describe for Mr. Curley and
Mr. Schultz whether or not either Mr. Sandusky or this young boy had any clothes on?
A Yes. I would have made it clear that it was in the shower and they were naked.
Q Would you have described for them what you believed the act was that you saw occurring in that shower?
A Yes. Again, I would not have used some of the words that you previously mentioned, but I would have described that it was extremely sexual and that I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."

"Q Were you informed at that meeting by either Mr. Curley or Mr. Schultz that
Mr. Sandusky had been investigated previously by the university police department for being in the Lasch Building with a boy in the shower?
A No, I was not."

"Q This is in your mind, you've testified no doubt, what you believe to be a sexual act between Jerry Sandusky and a minor?
A No doubt at all."

"Q In your mind back in 2002, is that the kind of thing you would expect to talk to the police about?
A I thought I was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you.
Q Okay. When you were in that meeting, you believed you were speaking to the head of the police?
A Yes. In my mind it was like speaking to a DA. It was someone who the police reported to and would know what to do with it.
Q Did any -- subsequent to that meeting, did any member of the university police department or any other member of law enforcement come to speak with you about what you had observed?
A No.
Q And I'm talking about in the weeks, months and few years after this incident?
A No, not until October or November of last year, no."

"Q Did you continue to see Jerry at the facility?
A Yes, absolutely."

"Was there any question that you conveyed
accurately what you saw in that shower to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz when you met with them at the Bryce Jordan Center?
A There's no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry with a boy in the showers and that it was severe sexual acts going on and that it was wrong and over the line."

"Q Well, because it's a perjury charge, the exact words are extremely important. Tell me exactly the --
MR. BEEMER: Objection, Your Honor. It has nothing to do with the conversation with the father, so it's completely irrelevant. What he told his father has nothing to do with the perjury charge.
THE COURT: Sustained."

"Q Did you explain to him [Paterno] anal intercourse? A No, I would have explained to him the
positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one."

"Q When you looked the second time into the
shower, did you see Mr. Sandusky's genitals touching the boy?
A No, his body was blocking that area of his body, to be frank with you.
Q Okay. Was any part of Mr. Sandusky's body, did you see up against the boy touching the boy?
A Yes. They were as close as you can be, yes."


Anonymous said...

"You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

From Thomas Harmon regarding 1998. Sounds familiar:
"A The incident as I recall today involved Coach Sandusky taking the juvenile, who I believe was in the age range of maybe ten to twelve, to the Lasch Building on campus on a Sunday morning.
At the Lasch Building they engaged in some kind of exercise. I thought it was basketball, it may not have been, and after which they showered. And during the course of the showering, the mother reported that Coach Sandusky had hugged the child from the rear. At the time there was no report of touching of genitals or anything overtly sexual about this incident, but the report was that he had hugged the child in the shower."

"Q Did Gary Schultz ever talk to you about a second incident?
A He did not.
Q How often would you say you communicated with Mr. Schultz relative to the university police department and its function?
A That's difficult to say, but I suppose we had contact once a week, once every two weeks."

More proof Schultz should never have been called head of police services:
"Q Officer Harmon, to your knowledge
Mr. Schultz had no law enforcement training, did he?
A No."

"Q Mr. Schultz's primary area of responsibility was business and finance, right?
A That's correct."

I keep hearing "Read this" and "read that". It is pretty clear who did not do their reading when calling Schultz head of police services.

"Q He never gave you any instructions on how to do your job in terms of enforcing the law, did he?
A He did not."

Mikey's dad to Schultz: "did he go away from the meeting with an understanding that I was reporting something that I thought was of a sexual nature that occurred in that shower room, yes.

"He says, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a little boy. He says, first I heard it and, he said, I knew that something was going wrong. And he said, I followed -- looked into the locker room and saw him there with a little boy."


Anonymous said...

And Paterno:
"Q Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
A Well, he had seen a person, an older -- not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it -- I'm not sure what the term would be -- a young boy."

But I thought it was horseplay or watered down?

"Q You're saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
A No, he had retired voluntarily."

As opposed to involuntarily...

"Q I think you used the term fondling. Is the term that you used?
A Well, I don't know what you would call Obviously, he was doing something with the
youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.
I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told -- I didn't go any further than
that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

"Q Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had this inappropriate conduct take place?
A In the shower.
Q Where was the shower?
A In the Lasch Building.
Q Is that on the campus of Penn State
A It's right on the campus."

Another gem:
"Well, I can't be precise. I ordinarily
would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends."

"Q Was the information that you passed along substantially the same information that
Mr. McQueary had given you?
A Yes."

Again, no mention of watering down or horseplay


Anonymous said...

More Joe:
"A I do not know of anything else that Jerry
would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

Again, I never used Freeh's findings to back an argument. The one about Joe being made aware of 1998 might not be too big a stretch, however.

And Curley, a man awaiting trial for perjury and failure to report child abuse:

"I can't recall the specific conversation with Mike and exactly how he said it. My recollection was that Mike could hear there were people in -- they were in the shower area, that they were horsing around, that they were playful, and that it just did not feel appropriate."

There's the horseplay. Very credible.

"My recollection was that they were kind of wrestling, there was body contact, and they were horsing around."

But wrestling results in calling the university president and head of second mile:
"As a result of this, you thought it appropriate to inform the university, the president of the university?
A That's correct."

"Jerry had what the university calls emeritus status. His status at that time, he was not employed at the university in 2002, but he had what they call emeritus status, which I'm not sure if I know all of the benefits of that. But I know one of the benefits is that he can have office space and utilize campus resources."

"Q Does Sandusky still enjoy that emeritus
status at this point?
A Yes, ma'am."

"Q Did you ask Jerry Sandusky who the boy
was that was with him in the shower?
A I did not.
Q Did you attempt to find out who that
young man was?
A I did not."


Anonymous said...

More great cop work from Schultz:
"Q Sir, it might surprise you to know that the '98 investigation was handled by your police department and there's a --
A In its entirety?
Q There's a 95-page police report on that incident.
A In its entirety?
Q Correct.
A Wow. I thought that it was turned over
to the child protection agency for investigation."

Schultz describing his duties:
"I really run the operations of the university, the physical plant, all the facilities and services of those facilities, all the housing and food services; if you have ever been on Penn State campus, the Nittany Lion Inn, the airport, all kinds of printing and fleet, human resources, university police, and all the finance elements of the university which would include the controller, the budget office and the investment office."

"A I probably would have been able to, but it was my practice that I didn't ask the police for police reports."

And for Linda's "this is not a PSU" myth:
"Q Did you ever see him on university property at any time with boys who were of that age, Second Mile age?
A Well, technically, yes. I mean, some of the Second Mile fundraising events and so forth would be held on university property in either the Nittany Lion Inn or the Penn Stater. So, yes, I would see him at those events."


Anonymous said...

And for the horseplay myth:
"Q One more thing I just want to be clear on. When you met with Mike McQueary, was it or was it not your impression that he was reporting inappropriate sexual conduct, your impression --
A Yes."

But somehow:
"Q Would that be standard? Would that be the way the university operates when an allegation is made against a current employee or a very famous prior employee, that nothing be put in writing?
A The allegations came across as not that serious. It didn't appear at that time, based on what was reported, to be that serious, that a crime had occurred. We had no indication a crime had occurred."

Schultz Changing his mind:
"Q How about an adult individual being naked in the shower with a young boy and touching that young boy? Clearly inappropriate, right?
A Yeah, I would say.
Q But not criminal in your mind, not potentially criminal?
A I didn't get the impression that there was something like that going on."

Judge's thoughts:
"At the heart of perjury, the whole purpose behind perjury is the idea that in a court of law or some other location that someone is taking an oath to tell the truth, and by doing that they're not going to have an intent to mislead.
And the evidence that the Court has heard here today, it is clear that the intent here by both Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz was to mislead the Grand Jury into thinking that their actions were appropriate when I would submit to the Court clearly they were not. And they had every motivation to do what they did."

"I counted six different occasions in
Mr. Curley's testimony when he indicated clearly and unequivocally that he was never told by anybody that this was anything other than horsing around or just fooling around in the shower."

"Mr. Schultz's testimony is a little bit different, because he acknowledges certain things that are even internally inconsistent with
Mr. Curley. And they were both at the same meeting with Mr. McQueary. That is fundamentally clear."

"There could be nothing more material to that investigation than understanding why school administrators would not take a report from a 27-year-old graduate assistant that Mr. McQueary testified to and do anything with it, other than call the foundation that Jerry Sandusky basically ran himself according to the testimony. And the only other thing they did was talk to Jerry Sandusky himself."

"The material part of the investigation is why. Why didn't anybody follow-up? Why didn't the head of the university police follow-up? That's where you get those answers, and the answers there are pretty clear and unequivocal.
Not serious, clear a crime hadn't occurred, yet despite the fact that they had the report from Mr. McQueary, you had the statements from Mr. McQueary's dad and you had in the case of Mr. Schultz, the vice president, you had his knowledge, unbelievably, you had his knowledge of the 1998 incident where it was a boy of the same age in the same location being investigated by -- Jerry Sandusky was being investigated for the same type of activity."


Anonymous said...

"Yet -- and that is corroborative of his knowledge of why the 2002 incident, even if not reported in the way Mike McQueary had, but you clearly heard the testimony, is corroborative of his knowledge that when he is making a statement to that Grand Jury that we didn't report this and it was clear there was no crime, that is a perjurious statement."

Good luck with that $10k bet.


Anonymous said...


Someone who has been charged with perjury has not necessarily committed perjury, althongh that has not been how it has been portrayed. (i am not defending Schultz or Curley here, just stating that I want more information). We do not know, possibly McQueary committed perjury ( but the Attorney General would never charge that because he is their star witness against Sandusky, and if you think prosecutors are above this kind of wrangling you are sorely mistaken).

Again, McQueary seems to have told different stories at different times (his testimony at the Sandusk Trials much more forceful and direct than it was at the Grand Jury Hearing even), and his actions and those of the people he immediately told do not make sense. His credibility is an issue ( He is testifying about something he witnessed over a decade ago, and he is testifying after he was blasted by the media and everyone else for doing zero to protect a child, and he is testifying at the Sandusky hearing after he los his job, and he has other possible self serving reasons for doing amd saying what he has said both in and out of the courtroom). Darnov's credibility is an issue, as is McQueary's father, because they are doctors and mandated reporters who did nothing (if you believe McQueary), even less than Paterno. You might not see that, or believe that he may have told different accountings at different times, but it is clear he did. Additionally, you seem okay with 2 doctors not reporting anything to law enforcement (if McQueary actually told them what he alleges he told them) but I am not.

Am I saying that Schultz and Curley and Spanier and Paterno were definitely not involved on a cover up? No. Am saying that they handled the case correctly? No. But I am saying that there are a lot questions I want answered before I agree that there was some massive coverup and that Paterno was the ringleader of that coverup. I want to know what occurs at the Schultz and Curley trials, I want to see the testimony from those proceedings, and I want to learn more information from Spanier's lawyers ( does this mean I am a Spanier fan, no, but it does mean that his lawyers made many exellent points about the Freeh report and the case that are very pertinent here). I also want more information about the 1998 investigation, and want to know why the Child Welfare Department and law enforcement and possibly the district attorney and other agencies clearly dropped the ball back then.