ANSWER ME THIS: Regarding Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr Dranov...
- Thread starter Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
- Start date
Personally, I would take the word of the actual guy in the shower. He defended Sandusky very passionately as an adult marine, before he was corrupted by obvious scumbag Andrew Shubin.
That’s much more credible than a jury who also believed the obviously BS janitor episode and the story of Victim 9, whose testimony contradicted keystone accuser Aaron Fisher.
Where in the email do they suspect child abuse?
It’s true Gary Schultz originally considered that possibility after first hearing of the incident, but his tone seems to change AFTER actually speaking to McQueary. That should tell you something.
By saying “the whole fiasco never happens” are you implying 1) Sandusky would have been arrested in 2001 or are you implying that 2) it would likely result in a written statement from McQueary saying he did not see abuse and also a statement from the boy in the shower saying nothing happened, and as a result Sandusky is never arrested at all.
2) would have been a real possibility, 1) not so much.
Are you aware of the fact the Joe followed up with McQueary after the decision was made and he voiced no objection to how Curley and Schultz chose to handle the incident?
It would have not surprised me if had Joe demanded on his own that Sandusky be investigated, he would have been painted as a bitter old man still upset over the fact that his former defensive coordinator cared more than his children’s charity than football!
The problem with reporting to child welfare services is that there is no child that you are reporting as abused. If they don’t know the child, they can’t investigate his abuse. The proper authorityin this instance was probably the police, which Schultz should have been able to kick into action.
Last edited:
I’m not sure what your response is regarding. Are you talking about Schultz?
Schultz nor anyone else at PSU was required to call the police. If Dranov was not told of any attack or notified of one neither was anyone at State.
What is so hard for some of you boneheads to understand?
But the man was in charge of the campus police department. He could have asked them to talk with Sandusky about it. That move would have saved a lot of the trouble that occurred in the aftermath.
Here's another example of McQueary's testimony being twisted to serve the objectives of the story teller.
You are insinuating that the interchange with Paterno and McQueary went something like this:
Joe: "Are you OK with the way that Curley and Schultz handled the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm okay with it".
According to McQueary's testimony, the actual conversation was much more along the lines of:
Joe: "How are you holding up regarding the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm doing okay".
That's two very different conversations.
For those that think they are one and the same, let me ask you this. When you are consoling someone whose mother just passed away and you ask them how they are doing and they respond "I'm okay", do you really think they mean that they are okay that their mother died?
Last edited:
Let's break it down then. Did Mike ever express to Tim, Gary or Joe that he was unhappy with how the "incident" was handled?
Next question. If Mike, Dad or Dranov, felt more should be done, could they not have made an anonymous phone call in an effort to move things along?
Bullshit! If your drinking buddy felt Curley let Sandusky off with a slap on the wrist over a incident of child sexual abuse but told Joe he was doing okay when asked about it, he would be a sociopath, a coward, or both!
I still say no abuse happened, which I base on many years of words and actions of Allan Myers prior to corruption by $hubin.
That’s a bad analogy.
In the case of the man who lost his mother. The mother was dead and there wasn’t anything that could be done to bring her back. The man has no choice but to just move on.
If someone is upset because they witnessed child sexual abuse, and the perpetrator was still at large, the child has not been checked on, and the police didn’t even investigate yet. Something could certainly be done to change that situation!
I have no problem with people framing their argument that way. What I do have an issue with is people who change McQueary's actual testimony to reflect something that he never said.
Fine. Make that your case then. Just don't put words that he never said into McQueary's mouth.
Have it your way,
What is 100%, unequivocally and unquestionably clear is that Michael McQueary had zero issues, zero problems and zero concerns over how Jerry Sandusky was dealt with in 2001.
By not saying a single word, by not pressing the issue, by not coming forward to CYS, the police rt any other concerned body, he demonstrated that he was 100% content and happy with his life and how the noises he heard in Lasch had been dealt with.
In fact, if Sandusky really was sexually assaulting dozens of heterosexual teenage boys over a period of decades, I would think there’d be many anonymous phone calls.
Or he made a decision to not fight city hall. Now all the keyboard heroes on BWI might have chosen a different path but you cannot draw any conclusions about how content or uncontent he was with Penn State's course of action.
Without question he was content to work in the athletic program under JVP and Tim Curley. Its hard to argue he has the high ground on this one.
You exhibit troll-like behavior.
No matter the answer, no matter the situation, no matter the poster, you cleverly change the game and the rules
if Mike chose not to fight city hall, then he’s an absolute d@ckhead because he has testified he saw a sexual assault.
That is on great nephew you have there.
mike did absolutely no wrong. We get it.
Similar threads
