ADVERTISEMENT

ANSWER ME THIS: Regarding Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr Dranov...

All three were called to testify in Grand Jury proceddings 2010 regarding the Friday night incident.

If molestation actually occurred that Friday evening and Mike TOLD them molestation occurred, then why didn't they lie in 2010? Why would you cooperate fully with the investigation in 2010 and share that you DID have the conversation "if" you were TOLD molestation happened and (ahem) covered it up in 2001?

At this point, 2010, the three could collectively lie that they spoke. Even if Mike said he called his father, he could've said they never spoke after the phone call.

Any person complicit in a crime 9 years earlier (hiding child abuse) and would then FULLY cooperate in an investigation 9 years after said cover up just doesn't make sense. You would lie not cooperate.

THANK YOU AND HAPPY MONDAY.
 
Mike, his dad and Dr. Dranov all said nothing illegal happened when explaining why the authorities weren't notified. It was suspicious and concerning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: denniskembala
Mike, his dad and Dr. Dranov all said nothing illegal happened when explaining why the authorities weren't notified. It was suspicious and concerning.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.

HYPOTHETICAL: There was child abuse that MM witnessed and TOLD his dad and Dr Dranov. They deliberately COVER UP this info.

Then, why cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years later? No one in their right mind would cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years after you deliberately covered up a crime.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

So, I can't imagine there was any child abuse witnessed that evening.
 
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.

HYPOTHETICAL: There was child abuse that MM witnessed and TOLD his dad and Dr Dranov. They deliberately COVER UP this info.

Then, why cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years later? No one in their right mind would cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years after you deliberately covered up a crime.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

So, I can't imagine there was any child abuse witnessed that evening.

Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.
Were there any mandatory reporting laws in place in 2001 that either JM or Dranov would have been subject to had they been informed of an incident involving sexual abuse?
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.
Mike did not witness child molestation, only suspicious, concerning behavior. That is why they didn't report it. They said that under oath.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.
I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds?
A grown man "supposedly" sees/hears a young child being molested. He calls his father who brings in a doctor to hear the story. You are suggesting it is "okay" for the witness [grown man] and his father and another doctor to arrive at the conclusion that 'don't worry about now just go talk to the coach in the morning"
Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no.
Doesn't this scenario just make a whole lot more sense.
MM sees/hears JS and a minor in the locker room late. It is weird and makes MM very uncomfortable. He goes home and tells dad and Dranov. Dranov asks did you see anything sexual. MM says no but it was weird. Dad and Dr d say [to themselves] okay no sex involved the kid is probably okay, doesn't sound like a crime was committed so go to bed Mike and call joe in the am because JS probably shouldn't be doing that.
Think about your response again. MM walks in and sees/hears a coach raping a coed. It appears the "act" is over so MM slams his locker to let everyone know he is there so they will leave. He goes home and tell D and D who say follow protocol and call Joe in the am. Don't worry about the girl or notify anyone in real time. Anyone who would do that is a despicable human being and anyone who thinks that is okay is well.....
 
Mike did not witness child molestation, only suspicious, concerning behavior. That is why they didn't report it. They said that under oath.

Seriously?? They may have said this under oath but
. that isn't what was in the presentment
. MM certainly waffled many times on what he saw or didn't see
If what you say is true and they say they saw no molestation only concerning behavior does reporting concerning behavior warrant
. Joe being fired although he followed proper protocol
. TC GS and GS warrant having their lives ruined even though TC reported the concerning behavior to JS' boss who proceeded to laugh it off.
Regardless of what might have been said there was not one single
aspect of this mess that suggested anyone in law enforcement [or the media] thought that evening was just suspicious and concerning behavior.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.

1. No one of the PSU group were mandatory reporters at that time.
* if Mike actually saw a crime being committed, he should have went to police at that time
* if he was just 'weirded out', then he did the right thing by reporting to his supervisor, who also did the right thing by reporting it up the line and getting out of the way
* when it did get to Jack R (who was a Mandated Reporter); that is when the funky mushrooms kicked in including the swim shorts remarks and the use of the hotel

2. Mike would not be required to go to Police with the new laws - he would be required to report directly to Childline (and that includes B4 talking to his dad and Dr D), unless....
* see #1 above - IF he actually saw a crime being committed, he should have went directly to police
* if he was just 'weirded out', then directly to Childline - no talking to ANYONE else first (or he would be the one in jail)

so basically, if he saw what he says he thinks he thought he saw - POLICE
Otherwise
- back then Jack R and TSM should have been in the crap pile
- now Mike M would be in the crap pile

Under no circumstance whatsoever should Joe have been thrown in the crap pile - not then, not now, not ever

Class dismissed
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds?
A grown man "supposedly" sees/hears a young child being molested. He calls his father who brings in a doctor to hear the story. You are suggesting it is "okay" for the witness [grown man] and his father and another doctor to arrive at the conclusion that 'don't worry about now just go talk to the coach in the morning"
Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no.
Doesn't this scenario just make a whole lot more sense.
MM sees/hears JS and a minor in the locker room late. It is weird and makes MM very uncomfortable. He goes home and tells dad and Dranov. Dranov asks did you see anything sexual. MM says no but it was weird. Dad and Dr d say [to themselves] okay no sex involved the kid is probably okay, doesn't sound like a crime was committed so go to bed Mike and call joe in the am because JS probably shouldn't be doing that.
Think about your response again. MM walks in and sees/hears a coach raping a coed. It appears the "act" is over so MM slams his locker to let everyone know he is there so they will leave. He goes home and tell D and D who say follow protocol and call Joe in the am. Don't worry about the girl or notify anyone in real time. Anyone who would do that is a despicable human being and anyone who thinks that is okay is well.....

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply telling you what the law and PSU policy required the parties to do.

While I am at it, don't tell me to remember something that never happened. I'm referring to "Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no". That is one of those falsehoods that refuses to go away. Perhaps you should go and read the actual testimony (which I have posted several times before). If you do you'll realize that's not what Dranov testified to. Unfortunately, that lie has been told here so many times that people now believe that it's true.

To make it easy for you, here's his actual testimony:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.


That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply telling you what the law and PSU policy required the parties to do.

While I am at it, don't tell me to remember something that never happened. I'm referring to "Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no". That is one of those falsehoods that refuses to go away. Perhaps you should go and read the actual testimony (which I have posted several times before). If you do you'll realize that's not what Dranov testified to. Unfortunately, that lie has been told here so many times that people now believe that it's true.

To make it easy for you, here's his actual testimony:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.


That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.
And the difference is?

Dr: Mike, did you see a sexual act?
McQ: No

Dr: Mike what did you see?
McQ: Nothing

Dr: MIke what happened?
McQ: I heard stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
This is the most ridiculous part of the case IMO. Dad & Dranov both said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. They said that Mike was distressed and only talked about sounds. Dranov even testified that MM didn't tell them anything that warranted a call to police.

Somehow we are to believe that Mike couldn't tell his own father but he was able to spill his guts to Joe, Curley, & Shultz. That's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds?
A grown man "supposedly" sees/hears a young child being molested. He calls his father who brings in a doctor to hear the story. You are suggesting it is "okay" for the witness [grown man] and his father and another doctor to arrive at the conclusion that 'don't worry about now just go talk to the coach in the morning"
Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no.
Doesn't this scenario just make a whole lot more sense.
MM sees/hears JS and a minor in the locker room late. It is weird and makes MM very uncomfortable. He goes home and tells dad and Dranov. Dranov asks did you see anything sexual. MM says no but it was weird. Dad and Dr d say [to themselves] okay no sex involved the kid is probably okay, doesn't sound like a crime was committed so go to bed Mike and call joe in the am because JS probably shouldn't be doing that.
Think about your response again. MM walks in and sees/hears a coach raping a coed. It appears the "act" is over so MM slams his locker to let everyone know he is there so they will leave. He goes home and tell D and D who say follow protocol and call Joe in the am. Don't worry about the girl or notify anyone in real time. Anyone who would do that is a despicable human being and anyone who thinks that is okay is well.....

Well, that's my point.

In one hypothetical, Daddy and Dr Dranov are told something was happening. They CHOOSE to do nothing. So, they are complicit in the abuse.

Then, 9 years later they are called to testify. If they knew in 2001 that a child was being abused, they would have LIED in 2010 at the Grand Jury.

BUT...

All three cooperated fully. If someone lacks the moral fortitude to report child abuse (or cover it up), they aren't going to think twice about lying about it.

So, since they came forward about the Friday night talk at the house and they cooperated fully, I find it difficult to believe that child abuse actually happened that Friday evening.

People who are complicit in a crime ~10 years ago, either confess they were complicit or they lie about it. They don't cooperate fully with the investigation.

IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.
 
Here is a thought to help you move on. It is a paraphrase of a Bible verse. Count it a blessing when you are falsely accused. There is a higher power that judges. The opinion of everyone else does not matter. Do you really care what other school fans think about State? Move on. Forgive and move on. I am pretty confident that Sue Paterno is not a bitter woman. You are trying to pick the scab off a very old wound when you should be far beyond that phase.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.

There are two problems with your post, both in the bold sentence. Sandusky was not "some else in that organization", as he worked for the second mile, not PSU. (Don't try to sell me that his emeritus status made him part of that organization) Joe Paterno and the admins were in a position to "suspect" abuse, Mike was in a position to KNOW if there was abuse, since he was an actual witness.
 
At the time everything was handled correctly since the only thing seen was something possibly inappropriate.

That all changed when the AG introduced the anal rape story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
So, since they came forward about the Friday night talk at the house and they cooperated fully, I find it difficult to believe that child abuse actually happened that Friday evening.

It's also possible that abuse DID occur but MM couldn't be sure. That's why he didn't tell his dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz that he witnessed abuse. He simply said that he was uncomfortable with what he heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
If people haven’t figured this out by now, there is no hope for the human race.

What actually happened: McQueary hears something in the shower over semester break (late December 2000) and tells dad and family friend. When a position on JVP’s staff opens two months later MM talks to JVP about it and also mentions the shower incident. JVP checks university policy and decides to report up the chain. TC figures this is just another 1998 incident but still tells JR about it who tells JS to wear swim trunks.

What the OAG made it out to be: First it happened in 2002 to avoid any SOL laws and let the term “anal rape” be leaked to bolster their case. Everything following was orchestrated for maximum impact.
 
Well, that's my point.

In one hypothetical, Daddy and Dr Dranov are told something was happening. They CHOOSE to do nothing. So, they are complicit in the abuse.

Then, 9 years later they are called to testify. If they knew in 2001 that a child was being abused, they would have LIED in 2010 at the Grand Jury.

BUT...

All three cooperated fully. If someone lacks the moral fortitude to report child abuse (or cover it up), they aren't going to think twice about lying about it.

So, since they came forward about the Friday night talk at the house and they cooperated fully, I find it difficult to believe that child abuse actually happened that Friday evening.

People who are complicit in a crime ~10 years ago, either confess they were complicit or they lie about it. They don't cooperate fully with the investigation.

IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.
You are right PSTM however somehow they pulled off this hoax. They either ignored abuse in 2001 or didn't believe it was abuse but then in 2011 certainly gave everyone the impression it was abuse. IMO one of the more bizarre parts of this saga.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply telling you what the law and PSU policy required the parties to do.

While I am at it, don't tell me to remember something that never happened. I'm referring to "Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no". That is one of those falsehoods that refuses to go away. Perhaps you should go and read the actual testimony (which I have posted several times before). If you do you'll realize that's not what Dranov testified to. Unfortunately, that lie has been told here so many times that people now believe that it's true.

To make it easy for you, here's his actual testimony:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.


That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.

Well, if by providing the testimony you are suggesting Dr D DID think molestation occurred and the only response was call Joe in the morning then please read my final paragraph in my previous post. These guys are despicable human beings. No concern for welfare of the child, the child was never identified, JS roamed the streets for the next 10 years. Forget protocol, although I believe colt21 is a SME and disagrees with you,
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
It's also possible that abuse DID occur but MM couldn't be sure. That's why he didn't tell his dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz that he witnessed abuse. He simply said that he was uncomfortable with what he heard.
Actually, McQueary told his father, John, and family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranov, about the incident the night it occurred in February 2001. Dranov testified on Wednesday, as he did to the grand jury and at Sandusky’s trial, that McQueary told him that he had heard “sexual sounds” but did not describe seeing a sexual act.

He said McQueary told him he saw a boy in the shower and then a man’s arm come around the corner to pull him back in. After McQueary slammed his locker, he saw Sandusky come out in a towel. Dranov said McQueary was visibly shaken and when Dranov asked multiple times what he had seen, McQueary became more upset but only discussed the sounds he heard.

“[McQueary] was quivering, choosing his words. He was obviously visibly upset,” Dranov said Wednesday.

Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood.

Dranov said Schultz told them there were “rumors” of a previous incident in the 1990s that was investigated by police. He said Schultz told them no charges were brought and the board of Sandusky’s The Second Mile charity for at-risk youth was notified. Dranov said Schultz indicated similar actions were being taken with Mike McQueary’s report, but did not say other agencies were involved.

An allegation of abuse was made against Sandusky in 1998. The case was investigated by Penn State Police but the Centre County District Attorney declined to prosecute. Investigations have shown Schultz appeared to be aware of the 1998 case.

Dranov said that John McQueary told Schultz, “This was a potentially serious incident with serious repercussions and he wanted to be sure it was being attended to in an appropriate fashion.”

Conrad questioned Dranov about his status as a mandated reporter of suspected child abuse because he is a physician. Dranov said because of what McQueary described and because he was not a witness to it, the incident was not a mandated report.

Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.

“I don’t want to give the implication I didn’t think it was a serious incident,” Dranov said. “I did. I followed up to make sure he reported it.“

Dranov urged McQueary to report the incident to his supervisor, which he understood to be Penn State’s procedures.

McQueary reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning, and Paterno reported it to then-Athletic Director Tim Curley and Schultz, who spoke with McQueary but dispute that he told them anything sexual had occurred. Among McQueary’s lawsuit claims is that Curley and Schultz misrepresented what they would do with the information he gave them.

Both Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury (since dropped) and failure to report suspected child abuse based on McQueary’s testimony and their denials that he had told them of anything sexual. A later charge of child endangerment also remains and they still await trial.

In an email to Sassano and Eshbach, McQueary said the AG’s office had made no statement of support for him and asked about whether he could make a public statement of his own. On Monday, Eshbach testified that she told him not to because she did not want him to give a statement that could be used in cross-examination. Sassano said that McQueary was free to respond, but that he didn’t think he should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
Dranov testified on Wednesday, as he did to the grand jury and at Sandusky’s trial, that McQueary told him that he had heard “sexual sounds” but did not describe seeing a sexual act.

Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.

The highlighted statement says it all.


We have 3 possible scenarios:

1. MM told dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, & Shultz that he witnessed sexual assault. Joe didn't fully understand and Curley/Shultz covered it up. Dad & Dranov kept quiet because they didn't want to impact their affiliation with PSU. Later they lied and said MM didn't provide specifics because they didn't want to be accused of not reporting it. I give this a slight chance of being true.

2. MM clearly reported sexual assault to Joe, Curley, & Shultz but he only told his dad & Dranov about "sounds" that didn't warrant calling police. This scenario makes zero sense even though that's what the media would have us believe.

3. There may or may not have been sexual assault but MM wasn't sure what he saw/heard and he didn't want to falsely accuse Sandusky. That's why he used cautious language that the administration considered inappropriate horseplay. This is by far and away the most likely scenario.
 
Last edited:
Seriously?? They may have said this under oath but
. that isn't what was in the presentment
. MM certainly waffled many times on what he saw or didn't see
If what you say is true and they say they saw no molestation only concerning behavior does reporting concerning behavior warrant
. Joe being fired although he followed proper protocol
. TC GS and GS warrant having their lives ruined even though TC reported the concerning behavior to JS' boss who proceeded to laugh it off.
Regardless of what might have been said there was not one single
aspect of this mess that suggested anyone in law enforcement [or the media] thought that evening was just suspicious and concerning behavior.

YES. Dr. Dranov and John McQueary testified very clearly that Dr. D asked Mike 3 times if he saw anything sexual and that Mike said, "no" THREE TIMES. This explains the entire case, from start to finish. Mike didn't see everything, and gave vague descriptions to everyone. These are all good men, from Dr. D to John M to Graham, Gary Tim and Joe. Their actions only make sense when you understand that Mike never said he saw child rape.

The presentment was a fraud perpetrated on all those whose lives were wrecked by t his manufactured scandal, and upon the Commonwealth as a whole.

This is the evidence deliberately ignored by the AG's office, and by the mainstream media.

Corbett was corrupt, but also too damn stupid to know that he was dooming his political career by taking part in this poisonous charade. I take small comfort in knowing that he was a one-termer largely because of this. Now AG Shapiro has committed the same stupid political blunder by persisting with the case against Graham. REMEMBER this. He will be running for governor.
 
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply telling you what the law and PSU policy required the parties to do.

While I am at it, don't tell me to remember something that never happened. I'm referring to "Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no". That is one of those falsehoods that refuses to go away. Perhaps you should go and read the actual testimony (which I have posted several times before). If you do you'll realize that's not what Dranov testified to. Unfortunately, that lie has been told here so many times that people now believe that it's true.

To make it easy for you, here's his actual testimony:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.


That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.
You are being dishonest about this.

You keep quoting the testimony from the petit jury (Sandusky trial).

However, there is a quote from the grand jury testimony (which should be sealed, but shockingly, there were leaks) which contradicts this (and supports the "three times no" story).

I guess you can choose not to believe the grand jury leak since we don't actually have that in writing. But to suggest that people are just inventing this testimony out of thin air is wrong (and frankly irresponsible) on your part.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.
If what you say is correct, then there is no way that C/S/S should have been charged with anything. Would you agree with that statement?
 
YES. Dr. Dranov and John McQueary testified very clearly that Dr. D asked Mike 3 times if he saw anything sexual and that Mike said, "no" THREE TIMES. This explains the entire case, from start to finish. Mike didn't see everything, and gave vague descriptions to everyone. These are all good men, from Dr. D to John M to Graham, Gary Tim and Joe. Their actions only make sense when you understand that Mike never said he saw child rape.

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THIS LIE!

I posted Dranov exact testimony. He did not say that McQueary "said 'no' THREE TIMES". You are welcome to build any case that you want against Dranov and McQueary but stop retelling falsehoods to support your view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
If what you say is correct, then there is no way that C/S/S should have been charged with anything. Would you agree with that statement?

I agree and have never said anything to the contrary.
 
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THIS LIE!

I posted Dranov exact testimony. He did not say that McQueary "said 'no' THREE TIMES". You are welcome to build any case that you want against Dranov and McQueary but stop retelling falsehoods to support your view.
You posted his testimony from the petit jury.

You realize he also testified before the grand jury, correct?

So unless you have some evidence that contradicts the one report we have about his grand jury testimony, you CANNOT say this is a lie.
 
You are being dishonest about this.

You keep quoting the testimony from the petit jury (Sandusky trial).

However, there is a quote from the grand jury testimony (which should be sealed, but shockingly, there were leaks) which contradicts this (and supports the "three times no" story).

I guess you can choose not to believe the grand jury leak since we don't actually have that in writing. But to suggest that people are just inventing this testimony out of thin air is wrong (and frankly irresponsible) on your part.

Just because a story is retold many times doesn't make it true. People who are giving more credibility to rumored leaked testimony rather than actual on the record testimony are the ones who are acting irresponsible, not me.
 
Because they followed what would have been correct procedure at that time. If someone in an organization suspected some else in that organization was molesting a child they were supposed to report it to their superior who in turn were to pass it along to the organization mandatory reporter who would ensure that the proper authorities were notified. By having Mike McQueary tell Paterno what happend, both Dranov and John McQueary were ensuring MM was following PSU's reporting procedure that was in place at the time (that has since been changed and MM would now be required to report it to the police). So they had no reason to think that they had done anything wrong by not reporting it directly to the police.

Haven’t read the rest of the thread, but one exception to this is that Jerry Sandusky was no longer part of said organization. Therefore, his proper procedure would have been directly to the police.

Many tend to give Dad and the Dranov a pass, but if everything happened the way the Govt and PSU BOT stand by then these guys were guilty of very poor guidance when they told him to go to Joe.
 
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply telling you what the law and PSU policy required the parties to do.

While I am at it, don't tell me to remember something that never happened. I'm referring to "Remember Dranov said he asked 3 times if MM saw anything sexual and Mike said no". That is one of those falsehoods that refuses to go away. Perhaps you should go and read the actual testimony (which I have posted several times before). If you do you'll realize that's not what Dranov testified to. Unfortunately, that lie has been told here so many times that people now believe that it's true.

To make it easy for you, here's his actual testimony:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.


That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.

Again - Jerry was not a PSU employee. Go tell the police.
 
Just because a story is retold many times doesn't make it true. People who are giving more credibility to rumored leaked testimony rather than actual on the record testimony are the ones who are acting irresponsible, not me.
So you discount the possibility that his grand jury testimony was different from his petit jury testimony, even though we have a first person account that it was?
 
So you discount the possibility that his grand jury testimony was different from his petit jury testimony, even though we have a first person account that it was?

I'm going with what is on the record not rumors and hearsay. That's being responsible.
 
The highlighted statement says it all.


We have 3 possible scenarios:

1. MM told dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, & Shultz that he witnessed sexual assault. Joe didn't fully understand and Curley/Shultz covered it up. Dad & Dranov kept quiet because they didn't want to impact their affiliation with PSU. Later they lied and said MM didn't provide specifics because they didn't want to be accused of not reporting it. I give this a slight chance of being true.

2. MM clearly reported sexual assault to Joe, Curley, & Shultz but he only told his dad & Dranov about "sounds" that didn't warrant calling police. This scenario makes zero sense even though that's what the media would have us believe.

3. There may or may not have been sexual assault but MM wasn't sure what he saw/heard and he didn't want to falsely accuse Sandusky. That's why he used cautious language that the administration considered inappropriate horseplay. This is by far and away the most likely scenario.
Not sure why anyone still believes there was sexual assault in the shower in 2/01 (actually 12/00)?! From Allan "Only Known By God" Myers himself ... "nothing inappropriate occurred". Change the wording to "There was no sexual assualt but MM wasn't sure ..." for #3 and then I would put the odds at:
  1. 0.0001%
  2. 0.000001%
  3. 99.99899%
 
Again - Jerry was not a PSU employee. Go tell the police.

I have no problem with them doing that. With benefit of hindsight, I bet they wish they did. What I have a problem with is people claiming that Dranov was a mandated reporter and thus was required to go to the police. In these circumstances, he was not since he had no reason to suspect that the child was one of his patients. Sandusky was in a PSU facility. He had access to the facility because PSU granted him the access. The police that had jurisdiction were the PSU police. I have no issue with McQueary following PSU policy for those reasons.
 
I'm going with what is on the record not rumors and hearsay. That's being responsible.
Also, this isn't "rumors and hearsay"; this was a source quoting in a newspaper. Not "hearsay" because the person had first hand information of the grand jury. Not "rumors" because they went on record with that information.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT