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

[Erial_Lion]

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.

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.

Really comes down to what definition of “sexual assault” you’re using...Jerry showering with the kid alone, without touching him, can be a form of sexual assault.

I don’t believe the evidence supports an anal rape in that shower, but there is a whole hell of a lot short of that which is still “sexual assault”. (And this is more along the lines of what the jury concluded)

 

[AvgUser]

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?

..because that would be F*cking idiotic and a reason they should both be sent to jail with Sandusky

 

[AvgUser]

I don’t believe the evidence supports an anal rape in that shower, but there is a whole hell of a lot short of that which is still “sexual assault”. (And this is more along the lines of what the jury concluded)

but, but, but, ... if the truth were to be known, it would have hurt the OAGs case.

By the same token, one needs to make some great leaps to conclude Sandusky sexually assaulted these boys.
One has to believe that $$$$ didn't change some opinions and memories.
One has to believe that the Shower youth is known only to God.
One has to believe that the demented janitor was credible when he saw something in the stall, but lost credibility when he said the man he saw was not Sandusky.
One has to believe a lot of sh*t that simply staggers the imagination and stretches the definition of 'reasonable doubt'

 

[UncleLar]

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.

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.

Props to you for at least putting "to an extent" in your jury conclusion, most people don't bother with that. However, I'm not sure that the way that you summed it up tells the whole story.

Sandusky was convicted on four of the five counts with respect to Victim 2. They were:

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

He was acquitted on one:

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Here's the statutory definition of indecent assault in PA:


A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and:

1. the person does so without the complainant's consent;
2. the person does so by forcible compulsion;
3. the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;
4. the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the indecent contact is occurring;
5. the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance;
6. the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent;
7. the complainant is less than 13 years of age;  or
8. the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.

That sounds like the jury believed something pretty nasty was going on in the shower. And since, Mike McQueary was the only witness to testify as to what happened there, the jury clearly believed him.

What the jury acquitted Sandusky on was the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Deviate sexual intercourse encompasses oral and anal sex (among other things). To be convicted of that charge actual penetration (either orally or anally) must have taken place. So while it's fair to say that the jury refused to convict Sandusky of an actual anal sex act, likely due to the fact that McQueary testified that he did not see anal penetration, I believe it's a stretch to say that he wasn't convicted of a sexual assault. He was convicted of indecent assault for the purpose of arousing sexual desire. That sounds like a sexual assault to me.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Props to you for at least putting "to an extent" in your jury conclusion, most people don't bother with that. However, I'm not sure that the way that you summed it up tells the whole story.

Sandusky was convicted on four of the five counts with respect to Victim 2. They were:

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

He was acquitted on one:

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Here's the statutory definition of indecent assault in PA:


A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and:

1. the person does so without the complainant's consent;
2. the person does so by forcible compulsion;
3. the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;
4. the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the indecent contact is occurring;
5. the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance;
6. the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent;
7. the complainant is less than 13 years of age;  or
8. the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.

That sounds like the jury believed something pretty nasty was going on in the shower. And since, Mike McQueary was the only witness to testify as to what happened there, the jury clearly believed him.

What the jury acquitted Sandusky on was the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Deviate sexual intercourse encompasses oral and anal sex (among other things). To be convicted of that charge actual penetration (either orally or anally) must have taken place. So while it's fair to say that the jury refused to convict Sandusky of an actual anal sex act, likely due to the fact that McQueary testified that he did not see anal penetration, I believe it's a stretch to say that he wasn't convicted of a sexual assault. He was convicted of indecent assault for the purpose of arousing sexual desire. That sounds like a sexual assault to me.

Agreed, but this does not mean this was the correct verdict.

 

[Erial_Lion]

but, but, but, ... if the truth were to be known, it would have hurt the OAGs case.

By the same token, one needs to make some great leaps to conclude Sandusky sexually assaulted these boys.
One has to believe that $$$$ didn't change some opinions and memories.
One has to believe that the Shower youth is known only to God.
One has to believe that the demented janitor was credible when he saw something in the stall, but lost credibility when he said the man he saw was not Sandusky.
One has to believe a lot of sh*t that simply staggers the imagination and stretches the definition of 'reasonable doubt'

To assume Sandusky didn’t sexually assault anyone, you’d be assuming that he was so shook up the first time he was caught showering alone with a kid that he said he wished he were dead...and yet a few years later, he’s again showering alone with a kid at night in an empty building. (Along with all the other assumptions you’d make in that every single victim is lying, the jury falsely convicted him on every count for which he was found guilty, etc)

 

[roswelllion]

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?

At the risk of repeating myself averuser nails it his response.
"why isn't it possible MM Dr D and dad were describing an assault and DECIDED the best course was to go to bed and when you get up call the coach". Of course it is possible because there is decent chance that is what happened. A 6'5" adult assaults a minor and the "correct" course of action is to go to bed and call the coach in the morning. = disgusting and despicable

 

[UncleLar]

Agreed, but this does not mean this was the correct verdict.

I'm not arguing whether it was correct or not, I'm simply saying that suggesting that the jury didn't convict Sandusky of assaulting the kid in the shower is false.

We don't know for sure what happened in the shower. We do know for sure what the jury's verdict was, so any arguments ought to at least get that correct.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not arguing whether it was correct or not, I'm simply saying that suggesting that the jury didn't convict Sandusky of assaulting the kid in the shower is false.

Fair enough. But he was not convicted of "anal rape" which is the narrative that most people believe, e.g. "Ped State allowed anal rape in their campus showers for years!!!! F*** Ped State!!!! Go Terps!" and it is factual completely wrong (even if you are willing to accept the jury's verdict as correct on all other counts).

 

[UncleLar]

Fair enough. But he was not convicted of "anal rape" which is the narrative that most people believe, e.g. "Ped State allowed anal rape in their campus showers for years!!!! F*** Ped State!!!! Go Terps!" and it is factual completely wrong (even if you are willing to accept the jury's verdict as correct on all other counts).

Also fair enough.

 

[denniskembala]

Fair enough. But he was not convicted of "anal rape" which is the narrative that most people believe, e.g. "Ped State allowed anal rape in their campus showers for years!!!! F*** Ped State!!!! Go Terps!" and it is factual completely wrong (even if you are willing to accept the jury's verdict as correct on all other counts).

This is what I've been saying, there was never any butt busting at any time, except in the minds of idiots who hate. Their hatred isn't based on concern for little boys, rather because Joe Paterno consistently whipped their ass on the field.

 

[Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy]

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?

Let me share what WE KNOW TOOK PLACE. And, I will offer TWO hypotheticals.

FIRST:

We know Mike went to the Lasch Building. We know he saw Jerry there with a kid. We know he made the phone call to his father.

Now, no one KNOWS what MM, John and Dr Dranov talked about.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1:

MM comes home and tells Dad and Dr Dranov that he actually saw Jerry abusing a child (blow job, anal sex, hand job, etc)... The three decide to do nothing that evening. They go to bed and MM tells Joe Saturday morning. Now, Dad and Dr Dranov would have to had agreed to go to bed and tell Joe in the morning.

This could have happened. I don't buy it, though. It makes no sense. They could have easily said to do NOTHING and forget the whole thing. TELL NO ONE. They didn't. Joe was told "something" on Saturday. We KNOW that.

But, this begs a larger question. When the GJ began their investigation, MM, Dad and Dr Dranov could have easily lied in 2010 and said no conversation took place that Friday evening. If they were actually told abuse happened, why would they volunteer information 9 years later to the GJ investigation knowing full well they were complicit in child abuse in 2001? No criminal would do such a thing. A criminal would lie at that point. It is merely my word against your word kinda thing.

But, dad and Dranov went into DETAIL (the best they could) describing a meeting that they could have denied took place.

 

[UncleLar]

Let me share what WE KNOW TOOK PLACE. And, I will offer TWO hypotheticals.

FIRST:

We know Mike went to the Lasch Building. We know he saw Jerry there with a kid. We know he made the phone call to his father.

Now, no one KNOWS what MM, John and Dr Dranov talked about.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1:

MM comes home and tells Dad and Dr Dranov that he actually saw Jerry abusing a child (blow job, anal sex, hand job, etc)... The three decide to do nothing that evening. They go to bed and MM tells Joe Saturday morning. Now, Dad and Dr Dranov would have to had agreed to go to bed and tell Joe in the morning.

This could have happened. I don't buy it, though. It makes no sense. They could have easily said to do NOTHING and forget the whole thing. TELL NO ONE. They didn't. Joe was told "something" on Saturday. We KNOW that.

But, this begs a larger question. When the GJ began their investigation, MM, Dad and Dr Dranov could have easily lied in 2010 and said no conversation took place that Friday evening. If they were actually told abuse happened, why would they volunteer information 9 years later to the GJ investigation knowing full well they were complicit in child abuse in 2001? No criminal would do such a thing. A criminal would lie at that point. It is merely my word against your word kinda thing.

But, dad and Dranov went into DETAIL (the best they could) describing a meeting that they could have denied took place.

Easy answer. They don't believe that they were complicit in anything. They believe that reporting the incident to Paterno was the correct action plan to follow. If they had consulted PSU's policy manual, that's exactly what the manual would have told them to do. I'm not sure why you don't think that makes any sense.

 

[Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy]

Easy answer. They don't believe that they were complicit in anything. They believe that reporting the incident to Paterno was the correct action plan to follow. If they had consulted PSU's policy manual, that's exactly what the manual would have told them to do. I'm not sure why you don't think that makes any sense.

1) Who among those three KNEW that speaking to Joe was the (ahem) correct protocol? You're telling me this is Cardinal knowledge to tell Joe about suspected child abuse?

I am a mandated reporter. If something crossed my path, I'd have to look up what channels I need to take. Sure. I've been trained. But, I forget.

You're saying that those three KNEW contacting Joe was the correct administrative thing to do.

2) You didn't answer my question, though. I cant tell from your response if you believe that they were told child abuse took place or not. If they were told that, then why not lie in 2010 when authorities came asking questions? By your own admission, they were SMART ENOUGH to know University protocol to tell Joe, but now stupid enough to know they "covered-up" child abuse in 2010?

 

[marshall23]

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:

If MM could see into the shower, why did he testify that "an arm" reached out and pulled the child back in? Actually, I would trust Jay a great deal more than MM.

 

[JmmyW]

If MM could see into the shower, why did he testify that "an arm" reached out and pulled the child back in? Actually, I would trust Jay a great deal more than MM.

You really aren't very familiar with McQueary's testimony.

BY MR. ROMINGER:
Q. Did you tell anyone that you saw a young boy's head look out of the shower and Jerry Sandusky's arm reach around and pull the boy back into the shower?
A. No way.​

If you're going to criticize McQueary, I'm fine with that. Just don't make stuff up. And don't simply ignore things contrary to your argument just because you're lazy or intellectually challenged. That makes you no better than Freeh and his opinions.

 

[denniskembala]

You really aren't very familiar with McQueary's testimony.

BY MR. ROMINGER:
Q. Did you tell anyone that you saw a young boy's head look out of the shower and Jerry Sandusky's arm reach around and pull the boy back into the shower?
A. No way.​

If you're going to criticize McQueary, I'm fine with that. Just don't make stuff up. And don't simply ignore things contrary to your argument just because you're lazy or intellectually challenged. That makes you no better than Freeh and his opinions.

Mike did have a propensity for changing his tales.

 

[marshall23]

You really aren't very familiar with McQueary's testimony.

BY MR. ROMINGER:
Q. Did you tell anyone that you saw a young boy's head look out of the shower and Jerry Sandusky's arm reach around and pull the boy back into the shower?
A. No way.​

If you're going to criticize McQueary, I'm fine with that. Just don't make stuff up. And don't simply ignore things contrary to your argument just because you're lazy or intellectually challenged. That makes you no better than Freeh and his opinions.

You don't get it. Just because Mike said it under oath, doesn't make it the truth. I simply don't believe he is credible. If you choose to think his testimony is gospel, have at it. One would have to be a dim wit to think that by the time MM took the stand, his testimony had not been practiced and packaged.

 

[pandaczar12]

To assume Sandusky didn’t sexually assault anyone, you’d be assuming that he was so shook up the first time he was caught showering alone with a kid that he said he wished he were dead...and yet a few years later, he’s again showering alone with a kid at night in an empty building. (Along with all the other assumptions you’d make in that every single victim is lying, the jury falsely convicted him on every count for which he was found guilty, etc)

Link to the "wished he were dead" comment?

Easy answer. They don't believe that they were complicit in anything. They believe that reporting the incident to Paterno was the correct action plan to follow. If they had consulted PSU's policy manual, that's exactly what the manual would have told them to do. I'm not sure why you don't think that makes any sense.

As has been pointed out multiple times, since Sandusky was not a university employee, the PSU policy manual does not apply.

 

[KCLion]

Easy answer. They don't believe that they were complicit in anything. They believe that reporting the incident to Paterno was the correct action plan to follow. If they had consulted PSU's policy manual, that's exactly what the manual would have told them to do. I'm not sure why you don't think that makes any sense.

Uh, no - Jerry was not an employee.

 

[roswelllion]

1) Who among those three KNEW that speaking to Joe was the (ahem) correct protocol? You're telling me this is Cardinal knowledge to tell Joe about suspected child abuse?

I am a mandated reporter. If something crossed my path, I'd have to look up what channels I need to take. Sure. I've been trained. But, I forget.

You're saying that those three KNEW contacting Joe was the correct administrative thing to do.

2) You didn't answer my question, though. I cant tell from your response if you believe that they were told child abuse took place or not. If they were told that, then why not lie in 2010 when authorities came asking questions? By your own admission, they were SMART ENOUGH to know University protocol to tell Joe, but now stupid enough to know they "covered-up" child abuse in 2010?

PTSM first off you are extremely lucid in this thread. Nice surprise. Secondly you are missing something obvious. [but illogical]. You have said if they knew something happened in 2001 and didn't report it but then admitted it 2010 they would be complicit. To that extent I agree. BUT what happened to them? Nothing. That is why this whole thing was so F'ed up and why those 3 men disgust me.

 

[Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy]

PTSM first off you are extremely lucid in this thread. Nice surprise. Secondly you are missing something obvious. [but illogical]. You have said if they knew something happened in 2001 and didn't report it but then admitted it 2010 they would be complicit. To that extent I agree. BUT what happened to them? Nothing. That is why this whole thing was so F'ed up and why those 3 men disgust me.

I'm (ahem) lucid in this thread? Have you even read some of the responses?

All I'm saying is "if" Daddy and Dr Dranov were TOLD Jerry was giving a child a blow job or fvcking him in the ass, they would've have LIED to the investigators in 2010 that such a meeting between the three of them ever took place. Thats EXACTLY what criminals do, they LIE to cover their ass.

But, the OPPOSITE happened. They actually COOPERATED with the investigation. Only innocent people COOPERATE and are forthcoming with information.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Link to the "wished he were dead" comment?

Google "Sandusky I wish I were dead" and you'll get tons of hits. It was something that he was reported saying while the police were hiding in the other room during the 1998 investigation.

According to the mother of Victim 6, who reported Sandusky to authorities when her then 11-year-old son told her they had showered together, the coach told her during the investigation, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from I you. I wish I were dead," while detectives secretly listened to the conversation in another room.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/jerry-sandusky-the-monster-no-one-wanted-to-see/

 

[psu7113]

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.

Oh please. What if it was merely suspicious at the time, and handled as such, but then became sexual abuse in McQueary’s mind years later when law enforcement strongly suspected Sandusky was a sexual predator and were building a case against him and enlisted (if not coerced) his help? Time and subsequent events often cause people to “fill in the gaps” so to speak. I think all of the above has been discussed ad nauseam on this board and many other places. The above explains everything, including why none of Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Spanier acted the least bit guilty right up until the shit hit the fan. You appear to have a naive sense of how prosecutors often conduct themselves. McQueary certainly seems to have been a flawed person, but it couldn’t be more clear that he (like many before and since) got squeezed and manipulated.

 

[LundyPSU]

You really aren't very familiar with McQueary's testimony.

BY MR. ROMINGER:
Q. Did you tell anyone that you saw a young boy's head look out of the shower and Jerry Sandusky's arm reach around and pull the boy back into the shower?
A. No way.​

If you're going to criticize McQueary, I'm fine with that. Just don't make stuff up. And don't simply ignore things contrary to your argument just because you're lazy or intellectually challenged. That makes you no better than Freeh and his opinions.

He is referring to Dranov's testimony about what Mike told him

 

[LundyPSU]

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).

Except Mike testified that the boy was standing upright, not bending over. And how would you explain the OAG putting a mannequin on a stool to demonstrate what Mike described?

 

[roswelllion]

Oh please. What if it was merely suspicious at the time, and handled as such, but then became sexual abuse in McQueary’s mind years later when law enforcement strongly suspected Sandusky was a sexual predator and were building a case against him and enlisted (if not coerced) his help? Time and subsequent events often cause people to “fill in the gaps” so to speak. I think all of the above has been discussed ad nauseam on this board and many other places. The above explains everything, including why none of Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Spanier acted the least bit guilty right up until the shit hit the fan. You appear to have a naive sense of how prosecutors often conduct themselves. McQueary certainly seems to have been a flawed person, but it couldn’t be more clear that he (like many before and since) got squeezed and manipulated.

Listen, I agree with you. I am only trying to make the point that those who try to give Dr D dad and MM a pass on their actions because they followed "protocol" , or suggest that their descriptions in 2010/2011 were consistent with actions in 2001. If so then these guys are scumbags.
You can't allow a grown adult who you suspect is molesting a child and go to bed just to call coach in the morning unless you are a scumbag.

I do not believe that is what happened. I think MM was vague on what he saw and reported to ALL parties. I also believe when Raykovitz who should be the EXPERT blew off TC ALL parties probably thought it was 1998 all over again and weird but not sexual assault. They took the correct action which was to tell JS he couldn't bring kids in anymore. Then as more and more started coming out their memories changed. Maybe squeezed, maybe just a guilty conscience for not doing more I don't know. BUT these 3 guys DID NOT MAN UP either in 2001 or 2011 or both and that to me is disgusting.

 

[lubrano]

My understanding is that Dr Dranov was investigated not once but twice by PA State Licensing folks after the Presentment. In each instance, investigators concluded he behaved appropriately. In other words, because Dranov WAS NOT informed by ANY party that sexual abuse of a child had occurred, he had no obligation to report.

This is very telling.

 

[denniskembala]

My understanding is that Dr Dranov was investigated not was but twice by PA State Licensing folks after the Presentment. In each instance, investigators concluded he behaved appropriately. In other words, because Dranov WAS NOT informed by ANY party that sexual abuse of a child had occurred, he had no obligation to report.

This is very telling.

In other words, nothing happened except possibly Mike's imagination which ,may or may not have been impaired.

Then what was all the hell that was raised? Other than a vendetta against Paterno and Spanier and a sham to hide what the BOT and TSM were really up to.

 

[colt21]

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?

Just Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because those two thoughts cannot be pieced together in any universe and make sense!?*

If he saw an “assault” then the only course of action is the police - all the time, every time!

 

[colt21]

My understanding is that Dr Dranov was investigated not once but twice by PA State Licensing folks after the Presentment. In each instance, investigators concluded he behaved appropriately. In other words, because Dranov WAS NOT informed by ANY party that sexual abuse of a child had occurred, he had no obligation to report.

This is very telling.

With the laws At that time And in that situation, Dr D was not a mandated reporter.

In today’s world if Mike would have went to him (or Dad) Before directly reporting to Childline himself, he’d be in so much trouble you couldn’t even imagine

The telling part to me is that this proves that Mike didn’t report sexual abuse but later on down the road others (who were also Not mandated reporters at that time) could be accused of anything - in no logical world does that make sense.

 

[pandaczar12]

Google "Sandusky I wish I were dead" and you'll get tons of hits. It was something that he was reported saying while the police were hiding in the other room during the 1998 investigation.

According to the mother of Victim 6, who reported Sandusky to authorities when her then 11-year-old son told her they had showered together, the coach told her during the investigation, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from I you. I wish I were dead," while detectives secretly listened to the conversation in another room.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/jerry-sandusky-the-monster-no-one-wanted-to-see/

It’s not my job to use google to prove your point.

So no proof, no recording of this sting operation, just something he is “reported” to have said, that’s what I figured. Brought to you by the same people who said Mike saw anal rape.

 

[berklion]

Odd. As I'm reading this thread, I'm watching a commercial containing "horseplay" in the upper right hand corner. Brought to you by Emgality.

 

[denniskembala]

Just Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because those two thoughts cannot be pieced together in any universe and make sense!?*

If he saw an “assault” then the only course of action is the police - all the time, every time!

By the one who saw it, no one else.

 

[JmmyW]

He is referring to Dranov's testimony about what Mike told him

No, he wasn’t. He said that was McQueary’s testimony.

If MM could see into the shower, why did he testify that "an arm" reached out and pulled the child back in? Actually, I would trust Jay a great deal more than MM.

You don't get it. Just because Mike said it under oath, doesn't make it the truth. I simply don't believe he is credible. If you choose to think his testimony is gospel, have at it. One would have to be a dim wit to think that by the time MM took the stand, his testimony had not been practiced and packaged.

You said McQueary testified that an arm reached out and pulled the child back in. He didn’t. That has nothing to do with McQueary’s credibility. It has everything to do with your credibility.

 

[PSU2UNC]

My understanding is that Dr Dranov was investigated not once but twice by PA State Licensing folks after the Presentment. In each instance, investigators concluded he behaved appropriately. In other words, because Dranov WAS NOT informed by ANY party that sexual abuse of a child had occurred, he had no obligation to report.

This is very telling.

Thanks Anthony. I had not heard this before. This is pretty huge, isn't it??

 

[Erial_Lion]

It’s not my job to use google to prove your point.

So no proof, no recording of this sting operation, just something he is “reported” to have said, that’s what I figured. Brought to you by the same people who said Mike saw anal rape.

Testimony (in court, under penalty of perjury) from both the mother and a police officer that they heard Jerry say it. If that isn’t proof, then it’s not worth discussing since you won’t believe anything that doesn’t help Jerry.

 

[RussianEagle]

It’s not my job to use google to prove your point.

So no proof, no recording of this sting operation, just something he is “reported” to have said, that’s what I figured. Brought to you by the same people who said Mike saw anal rape.

Even if Sandusky really did say “I wish I was dead”, what does that prove?

If that meant Sandusky was quick to confess in 1998, isn’t it odd he has confessed to absolutely no crime in over 10 years since the investigation? Never tried to seek a plea bargain. Never tried to get sympathy during sentencing by “showing remorse”. Never tried to get out of the monotony of solitary confinement by claiming he needed help for a psychosexual condition. Never confessed when John Ziegler employed a tactic during an interview that Jim Clemente guaranteed would get Sandusky to confess.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Even if Sandusky really did say “I wish I was dead”, what does that prove?

If that meant Sandusky was quick to confess in 1998, isn’t it odd he has confessed to absolutely no crime in over 10 years since the investigation? Never tried to seek a plea bargain. Never tried to get sympathy during sentencing by “showing remorse”. Never tried to get out of the monotony of solitary confinement by claiming he needed help for a psychosexual condition. Never confessed when John Ziegler employed a tactic during an interview that Jim Clemente guaranteed would get Sandusky to confess.

It doesn't prove anything (which is your point).

He could have been expressing remorse at upsetting the kid just as easily as "confessing" to something.

 

[denniskembala]

If you believe a mother and a cop wouldn't lie under oath, you're an asshole.