Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
What ever happened to the guy who capitalized on this by setting up a "sunshine fund" to FOIA all the documents and then kept them for himself? Was it Ryan something?
McQueary never said he saw a boy being sodomized. Here's what he did say during direct examination conducted by McGettigan:
Q. So I can distinguish what you believed and what you said to either your father or Coach Paterno, is what you thought you saw anal sex occurring?
A. I thought I saw that, yes, no doubt about that.
That's on page 205 of the June 12, 2012 trial transcript, and it's not a reference to either grand jury testimony or a statement to police. It's a direct question from McGettigan. It's also known as a leading question. Leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination because the question itself suggests what the answer should be. It's not clear why Rominger didn't object, as the court twice cautioned McGettigan against leading questions and even said he didn't know why the defense wasn't objecting. Your takeaway here is that the words "anal sex" were fed to McQueary; he didn't say them aloud of his own volition, he only agreed with them when pressed by a prosecutor.
And quite frankly, if McQueary actually believed that he's a complete idiot. He testified that the boy was standing with his hands against the shower wall, Sandusky standing behind him, Sandusky's front pressed to the boy's back, and Sandusky's arms around the boy's waist. Sounds just like that bear hug that Sandusky admitted to in 1998, doesn't it? Anyway, McQueary also testified the boy was about 10 or 11 and was about chest height on Sandusky.
Here's an illustrative picture of a grown man and a child of roughly the same age as V2 who are roughly the same relative height as Sandusky and V2 as described by McQueary:
I don't want to be graphic here, but there's zero anatomical chance that McQueary saw a standing Sandusky sodomizing a standing V2. The embrace that McQueary described, in the absence of Sandusky unmistakably bending at the knees or possessing gentalia of equine proportions and prehensile abilities (neither of which McQueary testified to), would have put Sandusky's junk in the kid's lower back. The relevant anatomy does not align. Period. And I suspect that's a, if not the, reason the jury acquitted on the V2 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse count.
As for McQueary's "discussions with the police," he admitted on cross examination that when he wrote in an email that he had discussions "with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police," he was referring only to Schultz and had not spoken to anyone else in law enforcement until they approached him in 2010. That's on pages 260-261 of the same transcript. In other words, at least one of his recountings many years after the fact of what he did at the time was partially untrue.
Hmmmm . . . .
Furthermore, if the boy’s hands were really “pressed up against the wall”, he would not have been visible to McQueary based on the layout of the shower and it’s mirrors. Jay Paterno confirms this in a sketch. I know others (maybe Eileen Morgan) have confirmed this as well.
The locker room design alone confirms that MM is less than truthful. As someone who spent 46 years going in and out of locker rooms as a player, coach and AD...I call bullshit on hearing slapping sounds thru closed doors and over the running of water in a gang shower.
I’m not discussing Sandusky’s “innocence”. Just talking about what MM saw/heard in his brief locker room visit.
Maybe because the lockers weren’t behind closed doors from the shower dummy?
My guess is Allan heard the door close (I doubt it was a slam) and didn’t think much of it at first. But when Jerry informed him some time later that someone had complained and PSU may be contacting him, he realized that explained the locker door noise. That tidbit stuck in his mind and he was able to remember it when describing the event ten years later (despite understandably misremembering other details of the event).
Also, it’s important to note Allan described the noise of the locker door shutting BEFORE McQueary made the claim that he slammed the door. It was not noted in the Grand Jury report.
Last edited:
You miss the point....that is if the information being discussed has been provided to the public from one source - through the lens of a corrupt LEGAL process - how can you believe ANYTHING MM reportedly (or testified to) or ANYTHING for that matter about the PSU "shower incident".
We continue to argue over things that are KNOWN to be manipulated by the State of PA, the media and most importantly witnesses that are supsect in the validity of their "sworn" statements - all information that is minimally "suspicious" as to its truthfulness. The focus after all this time remains on a "story" which is beyond reality and based on only speculations. This "story" is so full of holes, lies, distortions and inconsistencies that NOTHING being discussed can be credible.
That is what proves this is a professionally ENGINEERED political "Hit". After 7 years, the obvious and most important questions ARE not only NOT being debated..... but they are being IGNORED. This is NOT just luck....it is professional managed P/R engineering. Instead of addressing REAL issues - we debate who said what and if the door slammed was wood or something else.
IT IS ALL IRRELEVANT! You need to look beyond the fantasy the OAG, Freeh and the press created in 2012 (validated only by the OGBOT bizarre actions concerning payments and legal culpability - HINT: they were an ACTIVE part of this crime).
Catch the criminals! that's what is needed - expose the criminality of those who constructed this illusion!!!
Now we have something useful to discuss!
I am nearly 100% sure there was a shower incident involving Sandusky and a boy and that MM witnessed some part of it. Beyond that I am not sure of anything. As to your assertions about a political hit job and a deeply flawed and corrupt legal process involving our own BOT, Louis Freeh, etc, I buy a lot of that too.
Having said that, after almost 8 years of this mess, I have zero hope any of that will ever be truly exposed and brought to justice. Your outrage is apparent, so If you feel differently please explain.
A follow-up column by Tom Ley of Deadspin. He is doubling down on his criticism of Gladwell and is absolutely convinced that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a serial CSA abuser. He has bought into the OAG false narratives hook, line, and sinker. He is totally buying the date of the v2 incident being Feb. 9, 2001 and that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault. The comments are horrendous and are as bad as they are on a typical Pennlive story on the fiasco. There are no dissenting opinions. I am assuming that none of them read Mark Pendergrast's excellent book "The Most Hated Man in America" or John Snedden's 110 page report of his investigation to renew Graham Spanier's top level security clearances.
https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwells-penn-state-rabbit-hole-isnt-very-deep-1838381737
https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwells-penn-state-rabbit-hole-isnt-very-deep-1838381737
I love that your defense is Snedden & Penderast.
Please never change, you are delightful.
I also don't think you read Gladwell's book, Penderast's book, or even Snedden's report... at least while sober.
XOXO
Wow, what hot garbage. He can clearly attract the ignorant of the internet to comment on it.
I don't have time to go through all that's wrong with the article, it's has that many holes in it, but anyone who puts any stock into the long debunked 70s accusers is a special kind of stupid.
So in other words Pinkhippo....
Yes, so let me rephrase with more precision: Mike McQueary never said he saw V2 being sodomized or subject to anal sex while testifying under oath in a court of law. I'd add he objected to the OAG writing in the presentment that he did say that.
I think Sandusky is a pedophile who's right where he belongs. I put a lot of weight on the '98 police investigation and am of the opinion that no man in his right mind gives naked bear hugs to little boys in a shower, especially after he's already been investigated by the police and warned. But some of the story here is not credible for me, particularly the one victim who said he screamed while Sandusky assaulted him in the basement. Seems totally at odds with his "nice guy" groomer MO. I also have no idea how 12 jurors could agree that the janitor story was true beyond a reasonable doubt. I could see believing that testimony more likely true than not, but hitting the beyond a reasonable doubt standard with no victim and no eyewitness? Wow.
I am convinced that there is something wrong with Sandusky and that his behavior was highly inappropriate and most likely illegal. I’m less convinced about whether he actually ever committed oral or anal sodomy. Not saying I am sure he didn’t, just not convinced.
Jerry didn’t give a naked bear hug in a shower to anyone after he was warned. V2 claimed they were smacking towels.
You are right about V9 (the alleged screamer) who posted a profanity laced celebration on Facebook when he filed his claim against PSU right after the trial and he also recently joked about anal penetration on his Facebook page.
Also, the actual janitor who witnessed the incident is on tape saying the man he saw was not Sandusky. Proves how much Joe Amendola was both incompetent and has so little time to prepare for the trial that he could not locate that evidence.
Just curious, do you think Jerry actually committed sex acts with boys, or do you think he liked watching naked and attempted to groom a few but it never progressed to sexual contact?
My issue with that view is that if there was a sexual component to him showering with boys and that he “got something” out of seeing boys naked, it’s very odd that absolutely no pornography would ever be found in his home or computer.
Yeah that has always raised my eyebrow too. Sandusky is a very odd guy from many accounts. The whole thing might just be that simple.
I didn’t sit in the courtroom to actually hear the testimony, but I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he ever really harmed a kid, mentally or physically based upon the testimony I did read. I am nearly 100% convinced that some of the “victims” embellished or outright lied while the PSU checkbook was open.
Option 3 being, there was no sexual intent related to Jerry's behavior.
I'm not saying I'm convinced of that, just that I am no longer able to rule it out.
I agree. But even assuming Jerry is a homosexual hebephile/Ephebophile. All the boys he choose to target were masculine and very heterosexual. So maybe his grooming efforts were completely unsuccessful?
Got it. Thanks for the info. Sometimes it's hard to keep everything straight.
When the prosecution is unable to produce - ore even identify - a victim, that alone should be more than enough to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of any living, breathing juror.
Just fwiw:
My PSU hockey tickets are next to a couple from Lock Haven. A buddy of mine who is close to the whole JS saga went with me to a couple games and started a conversation with them at one of them. It came up that he had played football at PSU and they talked about how sad it was that Joe was maligned unfairly at the end of his life. They also stated, without provocation, that the kid who was from the LH area was a well-known liar and that "no one" in the town believed his claim of abuse or was surprised that he did that just for the money. They believe JS to be guilty, but admitted that knowing the background of one of the claimants made them think again about the entirety of the saga.
Last edited:
Why?
Well,
"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."
A bit contradictory, no?
It WAS a survey conducted by the defense in order to assess the "pulse" of potential jurors in a variety of PA counties. And details on methodology were absolutely included with the original survey (although I can't find the survey results at the moment, so if anyone wants to link that, I'd appreciate it).
So you can keep ignoring things that don't fit your (demented) world view, but you should stop lying about things are are clearly in the record.
We live in an age of fake news. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of that in this case.
I acknowledge that my view is Paterno did nothing wrong, and was the clear victim of media crime and the public’s rush to judgment.
I don’t know how many times I have asked people who think the coach and administrators were culpable to cite me one fact, the silence is deafening.
If I had known then what I know now about this case.........
I acknowledge that my view is Paterno did nothing wrong, and was the clear victim of media crime and the public’s rush to judgment.
I don’t know how many times I have asked people who think the coach and administrators were culpable to cite me one fact, the silence is deafening.
If I had known then what I know now about this case.........
Please explain why you think Snedden (who was employed as federal employee doing a federal security clearance) is deserving of your scorn.
That's another false narrative. Here's Dranov's 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.
So he did not tell his dad and Dranov that he saw a sexual act.
Huh. Funny that.
Wonder why that might be?
Edit: You are also treating this testimony as iron clad. I'd argue it probably isn't.
Ziegler has tape of 13 people who know v1 the best who are willing to go on the record in their own names and say they don’t believe v1. The people include best friends, girlfriends, aunts, parents of friends, next door neighbors, and women who organized the vigil for v1. Imho, v1’s accusations are suspect.
Without the v1 and v2 accusations, the case against Sandusky is not very strong. Of the other accusers, v4 is probably the most damning. However, he didn’t allege any sex acts until after his highly irregular interview with Leiter and Rossman (that was recorded) where they suggested he tell them abuse that other accusers had alleged.
I believe it was no coincident that Gladwell poked holes is the v1, v2 and v4 accusations.
