<p>If that post is addressing my post, its off-base and not relevant to what I said. And that’s the polite response.</p>
<p>
Paterno called them on a Saturday night immediately after talking w/ McQ and summoned them to his home the next day. You have PSUs head FB coach, PSUs VP and PSUs AD meeting on a Sunday to discuss something that was so trivial that Schultz and Curley waited 10 days to get the actually facts???
Probably because he is the 2007 receipent of the PSU Renaissance Fund chosen by the funds advisory board of which Spanier and Schultz were members.<br>
^^^ I guess the Schultz and Curley camp believes if they say this enough it will become true.</p>
<p>I don’t think the 1998 report was fully investigated. Not by that group. Also, if they really thought it was just horseplay, why the rounding up of the generals that Sunday. Right know they are all covering their behinds for the cover up. There was enough proof they knew something serious was going on to do some pull back of official relarionship with Sandusky, but there was still unofficial social relationships, ie second mile, use of campus facilities for camps, allowing Sandusky to parade around young boys to games and travel. </p>
<p>Then you have the letters, the weird albums of young boys, the short story, the timeline that has been verified…</p>
<p>Funny how the defense didn’t deny Sandusky was in shower with a boy, trying to say well was the boy 8 or 12, as if they should make any differnce, and asked if mcqueary saw penetration. It’s hard to actually see that, as anyone who has seen an r rated soft porn movie, lots of angles used to hide what’s going on, but is is for sure sex.</p>
<p>“The answer may be precisely because the 1998 incident was fully investigated and dismissed by the DA…”</p>
<p>And the answer may be because they were not interested in finding out the truth. Just because an earlier incident was dismissed does not mean a later separate incident should not be fully and immediately investigated. Unless you are protecting a big money football program and do care one iota for the welfare of the victims.</p>
<p>“Add to that the fact the McQueary’s father seemed to not remember where he testified last December, and the defense is already close to a reasonable doubt on the perjury testimony.”</p>
<p>Are you serious? Please.</p>
<p>For those interested in available reports</p>
<p>[BELLEFONTE:</a> John McQueary Sr. testifies in Jerry Sandusky case, can’t remember taking stand at preliminary hearing | Jerry Sandusky Trial | CentreDaily.com](<a href=“http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/13/3227480/john-mcqueary-father-of-key-jerry.html]BELLEFONTE:”>http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/13/3227480/john-mcqueary-father-of-key-jerry.html)</p>
<p>Maybe this is dismissible as a forgivable isolated mistake, but the defense is certain to bring it up. If the emails and Shultz’s file are incriminating, it won’t matter.</p>
<p>Well of course the defense will bring up John McQueary’s forgetting, but that doesn’t mean they are close to reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>it remains to be seen what the emails actually state, however what has been reported thus far is that Spanier stated that it would be humane not to report Sandusky to law enforcement. Certainly appears to be incriminating to me. </p>
<p>And I don’t believe for a minute that the PSU administration didn’t discuss this at great lengths and consult with legal counsel to determine what they could do that would in their minds preserve their interests. They didn’t get to that level of leadership without recognizing the criticality of carefully strategizing their actions and covering their butts.</p>
<p>Yes one elderly man forgetting something will dismiss all the other testimony. (rolling my eyes)</p>
<p>And go old jers own words. I hope they call him to the stand. bet he will say a lot of I don’t remembers.</p>
<p>Nobody knows exactly why the DA decided not to bring charges in 1998, so it’s hardly meaningful or accurate to assume that the decision was justified. The investigator certainly seemed to think that there was enough evidence for charges. It would help if that DA hadn’t disappeared without a trace years ago. Not that I’m enough of a conspiracy theorist to seriously believe that there’s a connection.</p>
<p><a href=“New York Post – Breaking News, Top Headlines, Photos & Videos”>New York Post – Breaking News, Top Headlines, Photos & Videos;
<p>
</p>
<p>All we know is that the DA decided not to prosecute the 1998 case. We don’t know why. Maybe Sandusky was just too powerful and well connected a figure for the DA, an elected official, to take on. Maybe Sandusky was a political backer of the DA. Maybe someone pressured the DA. Maybe the DA, like a lot of other people in that community, thought it was more important to protect the reputation of the Penn State football program. Maybe the DA thought he didn’t have enough solid evidence, or thought the kid would not make a credible witness because of something in his background or demeanor, or didn’t think the kid could stand up to Sandusky in a courtroom, or didn’t want to make a young kid take the stand in a case like this and without his testimony there’s not enough to persuade a jury. Maybe the DA thought he needed more corroboration from other kids who had been molested and it was only a matter of time before others came forward, but he didn’t feel he had enough with a single reported incident. (Notice the posture of this case; all the witnesses are now adults, and they are numerous, and their stories are broadly consistent, making the overall case much more compelling). Maybe the DA had his hands full with more criminal prosecutions than he could handle all at once, and had to let some of them go. It could have been any of these reasons, or a hundred more. You can never assume that a DA’s decision not to prosecute a case means the DA concluded there wasn’t a crime, unless the DA explicitly says so. And even then, the DA could be lying.</p>
<p>Maybe JoePa told him he’d handle it.</p>
<p>
And yet Sandusky now has been shown to be abusing more than one boy at that time, and continuing to do so over the next decade.</p>
<p>Surely that raises red flags about the whole “fully investigated” incident.</p>
<p>I keep wondering how many more victims there are :(. I’m sure we haven’t heard from all of them.</p>
<p>The officer on the 1998 case said sandusly should gave been charged but da choice not to.</p>
<p>I personally think there is a very strong tie between the missing DA and this case.</p>
<p><a href=“Questions on Sandusky Wrapped in 2005 Gricar Mystery - The New York Times”>Questions on Sandusky Wrapped in 2005 Gricar Mystery - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The one overarching theme here, beginning to end, top to bottom, was protecting PSU football. Everything that’s happened and every statement by PSU officials is consistent with that worldview. It’s inconceivable that lawyers weren’t consulted early and often.</p>
<p>Would it then have to follow that those attorneys perjured themselves and risked losing their licenses to protect Penn State football?</p>
<p>I think LaMas meant that lawyers were consulted and offered different courses of action and possible legal ramifications to PSU. That is nowhere near a path to lawyers perjuring themselves.</p>
<p>I’m interested in what the defense puts on. It will be very difficult to counter testimony by actual victims. In a normal case, you try to find evidence the person is a liar, etc. but they didn’t make those accusations while the witnesses were testifying so that, as a general rule, is not going to happen. It isn’t even allowed in many places; you have to ask a witness about material you will use to impeach. I didn’t see any evidence in the bits of reporting about the prosecution questioning which indicated groundwork to counter evidence impeaching credibility. So I’m going to put that aside.</p>
<p>You would normally introduce evidence of the guy’s upstanding character. I can’t see how that’s relevant and it’s really dangerous. Say you put a guy on the stand who testifies he worked with Sandusky for years and never saw anything bad happen. The prosecutor then asks, “Where you in the car with him while he was alone? Were you in the showers with him?” and so on. The answer has to be no, so that pretty much destroys any usefulness in that witness.</p>
<p>Do they put Sandusky on the stand? If they don’t, given the direct testimony of abuse, this is essentially an admission of guilt. Everyone would see it that way.</p>
<p>I disagree. I don’t think anyone consulted a lawyer until late in the game. I can’t imagine any lawyer recommending the course of action that followed. Even an incompetent one would have seen Sandusky’s access to campus cut off and a quiet but complete distancing (key word: complete) of PSU from the troubled coach. Most attorneys would have advised administrators on how to get their ducks in a row (yes, whatever could make them look good) while at the same time reporting Sandusky. (I’d say advise them to cover their butts but considering we’re talking about Sandusky that comes across as a bad pun.) Instead the administration stuck its head in the sand and hoped it would all go away.</p>