Letter from Brandon Short

how are situations like this (though obviously not exactly like this, but serious situations) handled normally?

since you seem so invested in proving that PSU, Paterno, and others were in the wrong.

But what makes logical sense M1EK?
McQueary say he can’t be certain but what he saw could have been horseplay, or fondling or something sexual or anal intercourse. He just isn’t sure but it made him uncomfortable.
So why wouldn’t Curley or Schultz ask Sandusky themselves or through a campus police officer for his version of the McQueary described events? It makes no sense that they would not. And if they were told a credible story by Sandusky who then gave them the name and number of the alleged victim why wouldn’t they contact that boy or have him contacted by a campus police investigator?

Now it seems likely that they would do those things and that the story told by Sandusky turned out to be credible and was backed up by the alleged victim 2 who said nothing happened but horseplay in the showers. That fits with what we know now.

McQueary likely gave a confused and conflicted account of what he presumed instead of a certain and clear accusation because it is likely he could not be certain. With that on one side of the equation and on the other the word of a respected community leader and head of a charity that must have seemed definite and credible and to cap it off the boy in question agreed with Sandusky’s version of events.

That’s it. There is nothing to report to any other authority because there was nothing to investigate. McQueary was not certain and Sandusky and the boy say nothing sexual happened so what is left to investigate?

I will even go further and suggest that Curley informed both Paterno and McQueary what they found out and they were satisfied with the report they got. In fact McQueary was so satisfied he agreed to be coached by Sandusky at the end of that month in a charity football game. Does that sound like a guy who was certain that Sandusky was raping a 10 year old boy?

Logic and reason M1EK. Occams Razor – the simplest explanation is most likely true. One only needs to call police IF there is a credible report of criminal activity and McQueary’s report would have been an uncertain suspicion that could easily be discounted or verified by contacting Sandusky and the alleged victim.

I’d bet good money that Curley’s SOP is to call in Schultz.

if you’re being generous, to the first attempt to report the 2002 incident.

Subsequent to that? Six months later, when Sandusky is still sashaying around campus and hanging out with boys?

Go to some police, somebody, anywhere, who isn’t part of this chain of command that is pretty obviously corrupted.

what we’ve all been wondering!

I mean, all of the people who replied that way actually know me IRL. Words can’t describe if they would actually think that I wouldn’t care about the victims…obviously they didn’t know me at all.

and, just this morning, a former assistant manager of mine who started tweeting on the day all this broke that “All Penn State is child molesters” and other crap, saying that I literally said that child molestation was ok (which, obviously, I did NOT), and I subsequently blocked—I am now head-to-head with him in my fantasy football league this week. He changed his team name, just for this week, to “PSU boy touchers”. Super classy. I know I should be the better person and be above it—the guy is clearly a massive troll and ass—it just infuriates me to no end. I have other friends who have cut off contact with him as well because of this, people who are unafiliated with Penn State, but the fact that he sees this as OK just boggles my mind.

Most of us assumed beforehand that’s what Joe would want it to be, is what I meant.

I ended up meeting with my manager (unrelated) later that day and completely broke down in front of her. This was a few weeks ago, right when it broke, and I had been having family issues as well—and this same coworker (incidentally, literally the only other person in my office in my department, so I have to work with her) has had a few days where she has ignored me the first 4 hours of the day when she has seen me wear my Penn State coat. Coincidence? maybe. But that’s too much of a coincidence, IMO.

You don’t know he didn’t. And, if he did, why isn’t he screaming from the rooftops to “clear” his name. Remember, at every press conference, he only answers the questions he wants to, he is adept at handling the media and averting questions he does not want to answer. My experience with people at his stage in life is that they just don’t care about little things and prior to this Joe seemed to say whatever he wanted. I just don’t see how he doesn’t get in front of a mike and tell his story all else be damned. We’re talking about preserving his life’s work. More importantly why didn’t he do it 3 weeks ago or at least after the Board “threw him under the bus”, removed the statute and his name was taken off the trophy. What more did he have to lose then?

Everything there is there to get an indictment. Any sworn testimony will have to be sworn to in court for it to be admissible and a judge will have to allow it.

Last one from me and then I will get a life. First, I hope you’re not driving while blogging. Second, I personally have been a big Joe supporter until this year, coincidentally…couldn’t stand the quarterback shuffle. Third, I am interested in your response to this:

given what Joe was told by McQueary, a person he put some level of trust in as evidenced by subsequent promotions, and given that Sandusky was around the facilities for years after with young children in tow, did Joe do enough (not legally) at any point in the intervening 3 years?

Are you satisfied with Joe’s actions knowing only these facts? If you are, then I agree to disagree. However, if, like me, you have a real problem with him allowing Sandusky (and I beileve if Joe said something it would have been done) to be around for 3 years after the McQueary sighting, then his removal was the right thing.

Not sure that Joe saying that he would retire at the end of the season and that the BOT had many other things to be concerned with should be considered insubordination.

They said Curley was on admin leave, didn’t say it about Joe. Just because he is getting the rest of his contract doesn’t mean he wasn’t fired. Just means they had no reason to break the contract but still fired him from the job.