ANSWER ME THIS: Regarding Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr Dranov...
- Thread starter Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
- Start date
And so we should assume that the most likely scenario is that everyone other than Jerry is lying?
I couldn’t provide a better response to you post than what is given below.
Please try to stay on point CPL!
You reply with a non sequitur because you can't successfully argue your belief about the locker room layout and you can't accurately cite testimony. It's telling that you didn't even try.
The fact remains that if there was no sex attacks, how were four men scapegoated over something that never happened?
^^^THIS is what I am trying to convey.
Two grown men, a PA and a Physician actually being told on a Friday evening that Jerry was WITNESSED having anal sex or giving/receiving a blow job or giving/receiving a hand job or anything close to those and then doing NOTHING just doesn't jive.
If MM were made OC in 2002 or Assistant Head Coach
Or there's evidence that his dad "mysteriously" had a financial surplus in 2002, then maybe that "smoke" should be investigated.
If Daddy and Dranov did cover up, what was their motive? Jerry was retired since 1999. It would be embarrassing for the "program" to call the police Friday, but nothing more.
Neither Daddy nor Dranov had any ties to the 2nd Mile or big shots that contributed, to my understanding. So, I don't know what motive they would have had to lie.
1984 Quotes
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
People in power have the means to write their own narratives.
My point is the four were hung out to dry over an incident that never occurred. Anything after that is not of their concern. These men were charged over something that never happened. Why and to what end is the question .
The only times I've seen people fight so hard to hide something is where murder or money are involved . And I've heard of no killings .
That leaves one answer.
@JmmyW It seems like you would prefer not to discuss OAG corruption in the trying of their cases against Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. I have asked you several times related questions, but have not gotten a response. I believe you read these questions, so I am assuming that you choose to ignore me which is your prerogative.
I believe that all of their trials were unfair due largely to OAG misconduct. From your previous postings, I am guessing that you don't have a big problem with the way that the OAG presented their cases and that you might even condone their behavior. I would very much appreciate your humoring me by responding to the four questions I asked:
1. Do you believe that Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier received fair trials?
2. Do you think is was acceptable behavior to have Frank Fina ask/compel Cynthia Baldwin to testify against her own clients?
3. Do you think it was acceptable for Jonelle Eshbach/Frank Fina to twist Mike McQueary's words and include in the grand jury presentment that he had witnessed an anal rape, a false assertion?
4. Do you believe it was acceptable for Leiter and Rossman to have asked leading questions of v4 and to tell him during his interview what other accusers had testified to and to imply that is was alright for him to make similar accusations?
5. Do you believe that AM is v2? If not, do you have any idea who it might be?
When you say "the four", do you mean Schultz, Paterno, Spanier and Curley?
Their issue is that they took on the responsibility of investigation child abuse. Their failure is they should have punted the ball to professionals. They didn't. They operated outside their scope of expertise.
Child abuse is something (like rape or murder) where you call the appropriate people to investigate. They were educated men and should have known to do that.
Let the PROPER professionals determine if their was or was not abuse that Friday night.
That is the question that really matters, at least as far whether or not the McQueary shower was legit. These disagreements over whether McQueary played in the golf tournament, what McQueary could see through a mirror into the shower, speculating on why Sandusky continue showering with at least one boy after 1998, and speculating over what Mike told his father, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz are minor in comparison. I have not seen one person make a legitimate argument that Allan Myers was actual assaulted in the shower in 2001 or that someone other than Allan Myers was the “real” boy in the shower.
The boy in the shower is only known by the man behind the curtain!
I need to correct your false statement. Dr John Raykovitz was indeed notified about the shower incident. He testified to this in the Spanier Trial. If anyone failed, he was the one that failed to do anything.
I think the problem here is our use of the word "proper".
Proper authorities would have been child welfare services and the like. Doctor John is a lateral move. Why? Because he ran the 2nd Mile.
If Spanked, Schultz and Curley (and, Joe) simply would have deferred the investigation to people trained in child abuse and do that job 40+ hours per week for years, we wouldn't be here.
Regardless of their motive (or even if they lacked a motive), THE - and I do mean THE - failure was that they took it upon themselves to investigate.
You're wrong. Aside from Raykovitz being notified, according to the licensing bureau, Dranov was found to have no notice of any sex attack.
Therefore, nothing happened, .
Maybe. Maybe not.
Evidence and actions of people involved (Big Red + D/D/S/S/C/P] suggest that whatever truly occurred was trivialized, marginalized and not anywhere near what the GJP suggested occurred.
Step 1: First of all there is some doubt that McQ acted immediately and that by the time he got JoePa maybe six weeks had elapsed.
Step 2: Even if McQ spoke with D and Dad that night, D and Dad both stated...nothing much to see here, but go talk to JOe
Step 3: McQ Himself says: I gave Joe a watered down version of it all out of respect.
Step 4: Joe testifies in 2011 , I don't know what you'd call it? I know this is out of sequence, but Joe's involvements was all of three minutes in 2001)
Step 5: C&S speak to McQ a week or three after Big Red talks to Joe. McQ doesn't tell tell them anything of substance (apparently/allegedly).
To this point, given the time delays and clear lack of information from the ear-witness, it is not unusual to perform some investigation on your own. We all do this. Its a part of "fact-finding" to determine what a next course of action should be (that is, unless, you truly do see a person being forcibly sodomized, or a gun being fired or something that is distinctly and clearly criminal...).
Their investigation concluded that tell Dr J was sufficient.
I can't really find fault in that position given what is known.
Yet again, you let the PROFESSIONALS determine if something happened.
Dude...
The President of the University, and the Police chief were notified of "suspected" child abuse. Are you insinuating those two had no idea of calling child welfare services?
Even the Email suggests they discussed it.
THE failure lies there. They aren't criminals. They fvcked up. Joe, too.
This whole fiasco never happens if Old Main reaches out to professionals instead of acting like the Catholic Church or the Chicago PD and deal with it "internally".
According to a jury, something did happen that night.
But why go with a jury when you have a licensing board?
Sure, juries are made of the best and the brightest. They never make mistakes and never enter a verdict just because they want to go home for the weekend.
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/Spanier-verdict-foreman-jury-mistake-Sandusky.html
Save yourself a lot of time and END this insanity.....You said it best ...."This whole fiasco never happen(ed - modified to fit the real point here)...." An illegal sexual act did not happen in 2001(2002,2000 - take your pick). EVERY person MM spoke to at the time confirmed this.
It was only after the OAG goons made MM re-evaluate his observations 10 YEARS LATER, that the missing piece of this "fiasco" was set - linkage to Penn State and Joe Paterno. Yet there is 100% factual evidence that the OAG KNEW what was being made public was TOTALLY wrong - as that was consistent with its practices of strong arming witnesses until they got what they wanted - just look at the untried perjuries by PA investigators (knowingly allowed by the State of PA to get off absolutely confirmed crimes scott free).
You can argue Sandusky FOREVER and it is all trash. What is NOT TRASH is that PSU did not conspire to cover-up anything and therefore was LEGALLY disconnected from Sandusky - yet without PSU, there is no effective (meaning LEGALLY viable) Sandusky trial.
The only certainty here is that Penn State University was drawn into this questionable trial for only two reasons - (1) Vendettas by the Corbett and OG BOT collusion (2) The need for an unsupervised (by outsiders) cash cow to finance all the "special costs" required to construct a Media story based totally on misinformation and lies. It also helped that basic legal processes and laws were CONSISTENTLY ignored without anyone questioning what was being done was LEGAL. Factually, IT WAS (and IS) NOT LEGAL!!!
It is mis-information that is being debated here....nothing else. The real crimes remain hided behind the "Smoke" of a "Story".
Is it possible a jury can make a mistake? Sure. But to pretend like the trial never happened and use a licensing board as “proof” that nothing happened is pretty disingenuous.
Penn Live slow?
How was it Mike lied to Dranov, but changed his mind with Joe, lied to both, or saw nothing?
You keep avoiding the question. .why would Dranov not be told of an attack but Joe was?
Spin away Penn Live boy.
I’ve never posted on pennlive in my life. And I’m sure never will. I regret posting about anything here, since so many struggle to see the shades of grey with all of this and think it’s all cut and dried (Jerry is innocent, or Joe knew forever and was covering up to help his program).
I don’t think Mike was telling lies to anyone. I would guess that he was holding back and not feeling comfortable getting into details with those involved. And that Mike likely wasn’t really sure what he saw.
You're avoiding the question. ...how could Dranov be found not to be told of an attack, but Joe and the others were.
They probably all came away with somewhat similar thoughts on what happened. However, they were all told versions of an assault, but since they were told at different times and Mike wasn’t completely descriptive (or sure what happened), they formed their own thoughts on what happened.
Not good enough to explain the rail roading. If Dranov wasn't told, neither was anyone else and nothing happened except in Mike's sotted brain.
I'm more than willing to accept your help with the testimony and the locker room layout. I'm now convinced that MM never told anyone a story about a little boy peering out from behind the shower curtain. After all, that would have raised questions about what he was able to actually see. But now that you shared his unimpeachable testimony and have vouched for his site lines in the locker room, other questions occur to me. Did MM ever testify that the "little boy" was in distress? I wonder if he saw the child"s face....you know, being that the little boy was pinned against the wall....with Sandusky behind him. Was the little boy on a stool? Finally, since MM seemed to think something was happening between JS and the boy....why did MM choose to run home to daddy? Did he give any testimony relating to why he left the child alone with Sandusky?
I don’t think that any of the administrators should have been charged with crimes or spent time in jail.
But I think I’m in the minority of people that believe that those guys were screwed, and Jerry is a pedophile (seems like most, at least that I encounter, are on one extreme or the other).
Sorry dude, Joe did NOT ‘fvck up’
Repeat after me - Joe did exactly what he should have, with the information he received, in his role, at that time!
Take all of that context and understand that it is indisputable (of course you would have to know a little about non-profits, CPSL and social service child welfare agencies to understand)!
Again, to everyone on this board who may read this - indisputable!!!!
I agree with everything you posted. The point is, how was Dranov not told but 12 hours later Joe was. There's a wide gap there in no attack occurred, then at the discretion of th DA and others one allegedly did.
I do not profess that JS is innocent. I don't believe he got a fair trial. I'd like to see what might be learned from a new trial, removed from the hysteria and OAG shenanigans. Only God knows!
It defies logic that MM didn't tell his dad or Dranov that night (or in the weeks & months that followed), but he did tell Joe in a brief meeting the next day.
Last edited:
Stupidest fuc#ing post in the thread! Congratulations!
Similar threads
