That's having tunnel vision to support your narrative. But carry on.
I'll take tunnel vision as a character flaw as apposed to spreading rumor and innuendo to support yours.
That's having tunnel vision to support your narrative. But carry on.
Also, this isn't "rumors and hearsay"; this was a source quoting in a newspaper. Not "hearsay" because the person had first hand information of the grand jury. Not "rumors" because they went on record with that information.
IIRC C&S weren't mandated reportes until the rules were changed retroactively. Is that correct?I have no problem with them doing that. With benefit of hindsight, I bet they wish they did. What I have a problem with is people claiming that Dranov was a mandated reporter and thus was required to go to the police. In these circumstances, he was not since he had no reason to suspect that the child was one of his patients. Sandusky was in a PSU facility. He had access to the facility because PSU granted him the access. The police that had jurisdiction were the PSU police. I have no issue with McQueary following PSU policy for those reasons.
I have no problem with them doing that. With benefit of hindsight, I bet they wish they did. What I have a problem with is people claiming that Dranov was a mandated reporter and thus was required to go to the police. In these circumstances, he was not since he had no reason to suspect that the child was one of his patients. Sandusky was in a PSU facility. He had access to the facility because PSU granted him the access. The police that had jurisdiction were the PSU police. I have no issue with McQueary following PSU policy for those reasons.
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THIS LIE!
I posted Dranov exact testimony. He did not say that McQueary "said 'no' THREE TIMES". You are welcome to build any case that you want against Dranov and McQueary but stop retelling falsehoods to support your view.
Haven’t read the rest of the thread, but one exception to this is that Jerry Sandusky was no longer part of said organization. Therefore, his proper procedure would have been directly to the police.
Many tend to give Dad and the Dranov a pass, but if everything happened the way the Govt and PSU BOT stand by then these guys were guilty of very poor guidance when they told him to go to Joe.
Again - Jerry was not a PSU employee. Go tell the police.
I have no problem with them doing that. With benefit of hindsight, I bet they wish they did. What I have a problem with is people claiming that Dranov was a mandated reporter and thus was required to go to the police. In these circumstances, he was not since he had no reason to suspect that the child was one of his patients. Sandusky was in a PSU facility. He had access to the facility because PSU granted him the access. The police that had jurisdiction were the PSU police. I have no issue with McQueary following PSU policy for those reasons.
I have no problem with them doing that. With benefit of hindsight, I bet they wish they did. What I have a problem with is people claiming that Dranov was a mandated reporter and thus was required to go to the police. In these circumstances, he was not since he had no reason to suspect that the child was one of his patients. Sandusky was in a PSU facility. He had access to the facility because PSU granted him the access. The police that had jurisdiction were the PSU police. I have no issue with McQueary following PSU policy for those reasons.
What you call "rumor and innuendo" I call "journalism"I'll take tunnel vision as a character flaw as apposed to spreading rumor and innuendo to support yours.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.
HYPOTHETICAL: There was child abuse that MM witnessed and TOLD his dad and Dr Dranov. They deliberately COVER UP this info.
Then, why cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years later? No one in their right mind would cooperate fully in an investigation 9 years after you deliberately covered up a crime.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
So, I can't imagine there was any child abuse witnessed that evening.
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.
Actually, McQueary told his father, John, and family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranov, about the incident the night it occurred in February 2001. Dranov testified on Wednesday, as he did to the grand jury and at Sandusky’s trial, that McQueary told him that he had heard “sexual sounds” but did not describe seeing a sexual act.
He said McQueary told him he saw a boy in the shower and then a man’s arm come around the corner to pull him back in. After McQueary slammed his locker, he saw Sandusky come out in a towel. Dranov said McQueary was visibly shaken and when Dranov asked multiple times what he had seen, McQueary became more upset but only discussed the sounds he heard.
“[McQueary] was quivering, choosing his words. He was obviously visibly upset,” Dranov said Wednesday.
Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood.
Dranov said Schultz told them there were “rumors” of a previous incident in the 1990s that was investigated by police. He said Schultz told them no charges were brought and the board of Sandusky’s The Second Mile charity for at-risk youth was notified. Dranov said Schultz indicated similar actions were being taken with Mike McQueary’s report, but did not say other agencies were involved.
An allegation of abuse was made against Sandusky in 1998. The case was investigated by Penn State Police but the Centre County District Attorney declined to prosecute. Investigations have shown Schultz appeared to be aware of the 1998 case.
Dranov said that John McQueary told Schultz, “This was a potentially serious incident with serious repercussions and he wanted to be sure it was being attended to in an appropriate fashion.”
Conrad questioned Dranov about his status as a mandated reporter of suspected child abuse because he is a physician. Dranov said because of what McQueary described and because he was not a witness to it, the incident was not a mandated report.
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
“I don’t want to give the implication I didn’t think it was a serious incident,” Dranov said. “I did. I followed up to make sure he reported it.“
Dranov urged McQueary to report the incident to his supervisor, which he understood to be Penn State’s procedures.
McQueary reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning, and Paterno reported it to then-Athletic Director Tim Curley and Schultz, who spoke with McQueary but dispute that he told them anything sexual had occurred. Among McQueary’s lawsuit claims is that Curley and Schultz misrepresented what they would do with the information he gave them.
Both Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury (since dropped) and failure to report suspected child abuse based on McQueary’s testimony and their denials that he had told them of anything sexual. A later charge of child endangerment also remains and they still await trial.
In an email to Sassano and Eshbach, McQueary said the AG’s office had made no statement of support for him and asked about whether he could make a public statement of his own. On Monday, Eshbach testified that she told him not to because she did not want him to give a statement that could be used in cross-examination. Sassano said that McQueary was free to respond, but that he didn’t think he should.
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.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.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.
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.Haven’t read the rest of the thread, but one exception to this is that Jerry Sandusky was no longer part of said organization. Therefore, his proper procedure would have been directly to the police.
Many tend to give Dad and the Dranov a pass, but if everything happened the way the Govt and PSU BOT stand by then these guys were guilty of very poor guidance when they told him to go to Joe.
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).
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.
Also, this isn't "rumors and hearsay"; this was a source quoting in a newspaper. Not "hearsay" because the person had first hand information of the grand jury. Not "rumors" because they went on record with that information.
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
JmmyW, the GJ testimony is still under seal, correct? If so, why do you think it is after all this time?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.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.
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.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.
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.Mike never said he saw anal rape. That was a lie concocted by the DA.
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.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.
JmmyW, the GJ testimony is still under seal, correct? If so, why do you think it is after all this time?
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.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.
McQueary's demise? He walked away with a big check.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.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.
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.
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:
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:
How do you explain the stool and disparity in sizes making penetration impossible?
Notice he said ex-wife.TMI
WAAAAAAAAY TMI
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).
Yes, that nothing happened.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.
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:
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.