I'll take tunnel vision as a character flaw as apposed to spreading rumor and innuendo to support yours.
ANSWER ME THIS: Regarding Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr Dranov...
- Thread starter Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
- Start date
I'll take tunnel vision as a character flaw as apposed to spreading rumor and innuendo to support yours.
Point me to the article and I'll comment on it. BTW, I don't think you have a grasp of what hearsay is.
IIRC C&S weren't mandated reportes until the rules were changed retroactively. Is that correct?
Regardless, a moral person would report sexual assault if they knew it occurred. They don't have to be a mandated reporter. IMO all of these guys lied (unlikely) or MM didn't tell them about anything that they thought required reporting (likely).
It wasn’t PSU policy!! If it was as bad as they want us to believe, the police are the only answer. A courtesy to Joe afterwards would be appropriate, since an investigation would be forthcoming, but POLICE is the only answer - unless of course he really saw nothing that gave him concern.
I really don't understand why you're so adamant about this. From Pennlive: "However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source." https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html
Did his trial testimony come out slightly differently? Perhaps...I still don't see your point.
Everyone who talked to Mike has testified that he gave a vague, squishy, non-specific account and that he never told anyone that he saw a sexual assault. The evidence is consistent on this point. That's what's important.
I made the same point in post #18, but it must be too hard to address because it was ignored.
He also had no reason to suspect that the child was NOT one of his patients.
Having access to a facility doesn't make him part of an organization. (We have retirees at work that get free access to the gym, but aren't employees) If it was just some random guy off the street, who picked a lock to the building, do you think that changes what Mike SHOULD have done?
Agreed - also not a mandated report b/c he was too far removed from the situation. No dr / patient relationship, no supervisory relationship - simply (vague) hearsay.
What you call "rumor and innuendo" I call "journalism"
https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html
"According to the source with knowledge of Dranov’s testimony before the grand jury, it went like this:..."
(recap of one of Mike's versions of the shower incident)
"However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.
Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police.
Their inaction is a crime, and totally different from the person they told- who did the correct thing.
Do you really want to hang your hat on one of Ganim's anonymous sources?
The source didn't actually cite his testimony. And you missed this bit from her article.
According to a source with knowledge of his testimony, Schultz told [Dranov] then-university President Graham Spanier had met with Sandusky.
Are you going to trust that, too?
And if you still want to hang your hat on this anonymous source, then surely you must accept what the New York Times' anonymous source said, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/...-paternos-exit.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
In explaining his actions, Mr. Paterno has publicly said he was not told of the graphic nature of a suspected 2002 assault by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant, of a young boy in the football building’s showers. Mr. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature.
But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident.
That’s not rumor and innuendo, that’s journalism, right?But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident.
So let me get this straight.
"MM's voice was quivering and he was visibly upset"
"he didn't see anything sexual but heard sexual sounds"
" he said don't get me wrong this was a very serious issue"
Was it serious enough to call police or child line? "Nah, just call coach in the morning" Yep, despicable human being.
Jimmy, I appreciate what you are saying, but if you discount everything that has a contradictory story in this whole mess we are left with basically nothing. Everyone has been contradicted by someone (sometimes even contradicting themselves) for almost every single statement since this thing started.
So you can either cherry pick the statements that you like based on trying to get them to fit your narrative;
OR
You can acknowledge that these contradictory statements exist and try to evaluate what effect that has on the clarity of our understand of what happened/might have happened.
My point being, we have very little certainty about what happened. Based on preponderance of evidence (more about what people did vs what they said), I have a very strong opinion about what happened. But that doesn't mean there is certainty in that. Anyone who says they have certainty about anything in this mess is delusional.
Poor guidance is the kindest thing you can say. Grown man in a shower with a minor, witness comes home and in a "quivering and very upset voice" describes hearing sexual sounds to which later Dr D said was "very serious" and witness is told to go to bed and call coach in the morning. That is disgusting.
BTW at the risk of being indelicate what exactly are "the sexual sounds" when a 6'4" 55 year old man is molesting a 12 year old boy." I never saw that asked or answered.
Right on bdgan!! I don't give 2 shits who was a mandated reporter. In 2011 Dr D, dad and MM gave EVERYONE the impression something very bad happened that night in 2001. And they did NOTHING to insure the welfare of the minor. Ooops made a mistake MM slammed a locker. Good lord where is common decency?
This whole thing reeks of fiction and stinky shit. The BOT saw this as an opportunity to savage Paterno and get revenge on him.
Sorry. As I hinted, you don't know what "hearsay" is. Let me quote the definition for you:
From the Oxford Dictionary:
1.1. Law The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
The newspaper is quoting a "source" who states what Dranov and McQueary's words were. The newspaper did not report what Dranov and McQueary said, they reported what a witness, i.e. their source, said. That is, by definition, hearsay.
What isn't hearsay is his testimony at Sandusky trial and he never says that McQueary said no three times. We just do not know what Dranov said to the grand jury. We do know what he said at Sandusky's trial. I will go with his sworn testimony, not hearsay evidence by another party.
Okay, but how do you discount that being the very first person, outside of the family, to hear MM's account of what happened Dranov heard nothing that moved him to or to advise MM to call the police or CYS? Either MM's account did not rise to the level of being sexual abuse of a child or Dranov is the worst kind of human being imaginable. PS, if MM witnessed a child being raped,,,,,,please explain why he would have needed anyone to tell him what to do? LOL LOL LOL
That's not a battle that I'm trying to fight. I don't know what led to the decisions that they made that night.
What I do recognize is when people twist testimony in this case to further their own cause. In general, I take exception when individuals tell false tales for their own benefit (which is why I can't stand Trump). When I see people doing the same in this case, then that's a battle I'ill take on. Hate Dranov, McQueary, et al as much as you like. Just don't go around passing off rumor and innuendo to build your case against them.
JmmyW, the GJ testimony is still under seal, correct? If so, why do you think it is after all this time?
In this case especially, actions speak louder than words.When it comes to twisting words, no one had their words contorted more than MM. We have evidence of such in his email and the response from Eshbach.
Mike saw very little if anything. The diagram of the locker room would lead anyone curious enough to look it up to conclude this. AM and JS didn't know it was MM who entered the locker room. Yet he claims the kid came out and looked at him and Sandusky came walking out? Nonsense. The idea that a "little boys" was pinned against the wall with a 6'2' Sandusky up against him doesn't resonate either......unless the Commonwealth had awarded JS a golden step stool, like the one they used in the trial.
I recall it was impossible for Mike to have seen anything based on the layout of the room. As far as sounds go, they could be anything.
This whole thing was fraught with shoddy LE, lying prosecutors, cowardly jurors and absolutely no establishment of credibility of the accusers.
The default position is to keep GJ information secret. There is no mechanism to automatically release GJ information. That doesn't mean it can't become public, but there's got to be some legal filing requesting it be made public, which requires approval by the GJ Supervising Judge.
In this case, the GJ testimony of:
- Curley, Schultz, and Paterno was read into the record at the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing
- Spanier's GJ transcript was released in one of his filings
- Baldwin's GJ transcript was released in one of Spanier's filings
- Excerpts of the GJ transcripts for McQueary, V1, and V4 were released by Sandusky in one of his PCRA filings
- and, Paterno's GJ transcript was released to Ryan Bagwell in a FOI request, which he made public on 5/6/2016
Here's a link to Paterno's GJ transcript:
Mike contributed to his own demise through his actions - or lack thereof -, his words, his inability to express himself in words, and his enduring silence for 8, 9, 10 years.
Still, I agree with what I think you are suggesting. EVERYBODY's actions in 2000/2001 were a direct consequence of the words, thought, actions and behavior of one person: Michael McQuery. At least five grown, responsible adult males who heard of the locker-room situation acted one and only one way. All was hunky-dorey for 8, 9, 10 years. Then... KABOOM!
Just because hearsay evidence isn't allowed in a court room (unless of course you are a PSU janitor) doesn't mean it has no value. It is a data point. You act as if that data point does not exist. We can debate the quality of that data point, but you cannot deny that it exists.
Are you really going to hang your hat on your beliefs, or a simple pencil sketch by Jay Paterno, as some sort of proof McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
What about exhibits 57 and 58 in Sanduksy trial, are you aware of these? Those were pictures showing McQueary's viewpoints in the shower room.
Why do you suppose Sandusky's attorneys lodged objections to the jury seeing those photographs? Why would they lodge objections, if as you say, they proved McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
Here - this is a little better than a pencil sketch:
Didn't MM testify that the boy didn't appear to be stressed? I think he'd be stressed if he was just anally raped.Are you really going to hang your hat on your beliefs, or a simple pencil sketch by Jay Paterno, as some sort of proof McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
What about exhibits 57 and 58 in Sanduksy trial, are you aware of these? Those were pictures showing McQueary's viewpoints in the shower room.
Why do you suppose Sandusky's attorneys lodged objections to the jury seeing those photographs? Why would they lodge objections, if as you say, they proved McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
Here - this is a little better than a pencil sketch:
Regardless, why did Dranov testify that MM didn't tell him anything that warranted calling police?
How do you explain the stool and disparity in sizes making penetration impossible?Are you really going to hang your hat on your beliefs, or a simple pencil sketch by Jay Paterno, as some sort of proof McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
What about exhibits 57 and 58 in Sanduksy trial, are you aware of these? Those were pictures showing McQueary's viewpoints in the shower room.
Why do you suppose Sandusky's attorneys lodged objections to the jury seeing those photographs? Why would they lodge objections, if as you say, they proved McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
Here - this is a little better than a pencil sketch:
My ex-wife was five foot tall. I laugh at people who state that penetration between two standing individuals with around a foot difference in height is impossible. Last time I checked people's knees bend just fine (albeit mine not as well as they did thirty plus years ago when i was married to her).
Notice he said ex-wife.
Hmmm... Do you have any pictures to share that PROVE your hypothesis?
There's a great deal of info in this thread. The majority of which has been discussed here - ad nauseum - since 2011.
The purpose of my OP was to address WHY would Dranov and John Mcqueary cooperate FULLY with an investigation in 2010 "if" they were actually told child abuse happened that Friday night in 2001?
No person complicit in a crime would VOLUNTEER information and cooperate FULLY with an investigation. They would lie. The only other option is CONFESSION. If they were complicit, one or both would come forward and tell the truth.
They neither confessed nor did they lie. They cooperated and volunteered information.
This to me, speaks volumes.
The purpose of my OP was to address WHY would Dranov and John Mcqueary cooperate FULLY with an investigation in 2010 "if" they were actually told child abuse happened that Friday night in 2001?
No person complicit in a crime would VOLUNTEER information and cooperate FULLY with an investigation. They would lie. The only other option is CONFESSION. If they were complicit, one or both would come forward and tell the truth.
They neither confessed nor did they lie. They cooperated and volunteered information.
This to me, speaks volumes.
There are five showers. From the sketch, two are visible from McQ's position(s). Three of the showers are not visible. Add to that the fact that McQ stated the youth peered around a corner. What corner would that be? There is no need to peer around any corner from the two showers that are visible to McQ. Add to that that McQ stated he had only two - or three depending upon the trial testimony - quick glimpses of whatever he did see. It all adds up to extremely reasonable doubt that a child was being sexually assaulted. And, to an extent, the jury concluded that as well.Are you really going to hang your hat on your beliefs, or a simple pencil sketch by Jay Paterno, as some sort of proof McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
What about exhibits 57 and 58 in Sanduksy trial, are you aware of these? Those were pictures showing McQueary's viewpoints in the shower room.
Why do you suppose Sandusky's attorneys lodged objections to the jury seeing those photographs? Why would they lodge objections, if as you say, they proved McQueary couldn't see into the shower?
Here - this is a little better than a pencil sketch:
The real crime - or failure - that happened is that McQ did not speak up and tell the media what he told Esbach. he permitted at least four good people to take the bullets for him while he somehow scurried away with $5M or so.
I'm not following your logic at all. I think you are insinuating that John McQueary and Dranov weren't told that Sandusky was abusing a child. If that's the point you are trying to make, I think you are making some pretty big leaps in your logic. Why isn't it possible that both John McQueary and Dranov understood that Mike was describing an assault but believed that notifying Paterno was the correct course of action?
Similar threads
