If we give Jerry the benefit of the doubt in 98, then you may think he didn’t confess to a crime as much as he realized what he did was inappropriate and something that he shouldn’t have been doing...which is what makes 2001 all the more telling to me. He’s really going to shower alone with a kid again three years later for no real reason, after what happened after 1998? He’s not getting the benefit of the doubt from me again that it was a harmless shower. The guy had a problem.
ANSWER ME THIS: Regarding Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr Dranov...
- Thread starter Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
- Start date
So we should just believe every cop, mother, and victim lies...just close down the prisons and let them all out!!!
I think a major difference between the 1998 incident and the 2000-01 incident was the views the the boys’ mothers. It was the mother of the boy in 1998 who voiced the complaint. On the other hand, the mother of the boy in the McQueary incident was apparently perfectly fine with Sandusky showering with her son. And even horsing around with him. This mother actually helped her son develop the statement defending Sandusky after the arrest. I believe Allan Myers even tries to throw his mother under the bus after Andrew $hubin got him to turn on Sandusky, which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
And if showering with naked boys really was a sexual turn on for Sandusky, I think it’s very odd absolutely no porn was ever found on his home or computer.
I do believe every single victim is lying, with the exception of V6 who never claimed sexual contact and possibly V7, who may have honestly been convinced he was abused through repressed memory therapy. Do you think the accusers were lying when they claimed nothing happened before the lawyers came calling?
Ignoring the whole, he got the kid undressed to shower with him alone after they played around for 15 minutes part...
And so you wouldn’t find it odd that he’s that remorseful in 98, but is right back at it showering with a kid alone at night in 01? You think all of these showers are innocent acts?
It happens more than you know. In this case they had every reason to with all the liberties being taken.
I think that some victims lied to protect Jerry until they opened up, and others came forward and are lying now that dollar signs are involved.
Why would these masculine, heterosexual young men lie to “protect” someone who sexually molested them when they were teens?
Wishing you were dead is about as much a confession as "It was a sexual nature" .
Forget" I don't know what you'd call it" .Confession only on Penn Live and the Lair.
Forget" I don't know what you'd call it" .Confession only on Penn Live and the Lair.
If someone is a doofus for believing the authorities, witnesses, victims, police, and jury over the pedophile, then I sure as hell hope I’m a doofus.
Why do victims of sexual assaults lie in many cases to protect the criminals? Why do battered wives lie to protect their husbands? It takes someone way smarter than me to figure it out, but it happens every day.
Link to their testimony? How many years after the event did this alleged testimony occur? Is this the same cop that thought he turned the tape recorder off and tried to get people to lie?
Lumping people who maintain a questioning attitude into the “free Jerry” crowd is not a good look for you. I just find it funny that some people are so particular about the details of certain info, but other info is blindly accepted.
Your analogy is flawed. In the example of the battered wife, she is obviously sexually attracted to her husband. There are some mentally disturbed women out there who confuse abusive men with powerful men, and actually find these abusive men more attractive.
Likewise, many teens who engage in sexual relationships with adults of the opposite sex, or are gay and engage in sexual acts with an adult of the same sex, may have difficulty seeing themselves as a victim. I’m sure most teen boys who engage in sex with their hot female teacher see themselves as lucky!
Yet none of Sandusky’s accusers are even plausibly gay, and many were having sex with girls during the exact same time period they claimed abuse.
I'm not 100% sure I understand your point here. I think we are saying the same thing (that the "I wish I were dead" quote isn't a confession).
Grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret ? There is no available public transcript to show exactly what Mike McQueary said there, but it is clear from everything else he said about this incident, including his subsequent courtroom testimony, that he did not witness sodomy or any other form of sexual abuse that day in the Lasch locker room. His version of events morphed over time, but none of the narratives included witnessing overt sexual abuse.
Here’s what appears to have happened. On a Friday night, February 9, 2001, a full year earlier than the inaccurate date in the Grand Jury Presentment, Jerry Sandusky was indeed taking a shower with a Second Mile boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building.
Sandusky took it for granted that boys and men showered together after exercise. It was part of the way he was raised, an accepted part of the sports world. Though he had retired as a Penn State coach two years before, he could still use the facilities, and he sometimes brought the troubled Second Mile boys there for a workout, followed by a shower.
As he often did, Sandusky, whom everyone considered “a big kid” himself, was goofing around with the boy. They were snapping towels at each other, or perhaps slap boxing, according to both Sandusky and the boy in the shower. Mike McQueary, then 26, who had been a Penn State quarterback as an undergraduate, was halfway through his post-graduate education, while working as an assistant football coach. This Friday evening, he came to the Lasch building to retrieve tapes of possible recruits. On the way, he figured he might as well put his new shoes away in the locker room.
Before he opened the door to the locker room, McQueary heard slapping sounds. He thought they sounded sexual. As McQueary later put it when describing the scene, “Visualizations come to your head.” By the time he got to his locker at the near end of the wall, it had quieted down. Curious, he looked obliquely into the shower room through a mirror across the room and caught a glimpse of a boy in the shower. Then an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse. After closing his locker, he saw Jerry Sandusky walk out of the shower. Was his former coach a pedophile?
McQueary quickly left the building and called his father, John McQueary, and told him his suspicions. His father advised him to come right over to talk about it. Then John McQueary called his employer and friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a nephrologist, asking him to come over and help them sort out Mike’s disturbing experience.
Dranov attempted, using the diagnostic and interviewing skills that he used with patients, to get a clear description of the scene that had so upset his friend’s son. Dranov was unable to get Mike McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?” McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
Upon the advice of his father and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary took his concerns to legendary head coach Joe Paterno at his home the next day. Apparently because McQueary did not actually witness anything sexual, they did not suggest he contact the police, nor did they feel called upon to do so.
This was the only initiative McQueary ever took connected with the shower incident. Paterno subsequently told his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Tim Curley, about it, who told Vice President Gary Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz met with McQueary to hear what he had seen and heard. From that conversation, they concluded that Sandusky had been “horsing around” with a kid and that, while it was not sexual abuse, it wasn’t a good idea, particularly because they remembered that a parent had complained back in 1998 about Sandusky showering with her child (details on that incident shortly).
So Curley told Sandusky that as a result of someone (he didn’t name McQueary) complaining about the shower incident, he should stop working out with Second Mile kids on campus, and there the matter was left, case closed.
McQueary apparently calmed down and accepted that he may have overreacted and that perhaps Sandusky had just been “horsing around.” He remained at least overtly friendly with Jerry Sandusky over the following years. He signed up for the Sandusky Celebrity Golf Event in the fall of 2001, just four months after the shower incident, then took part in other Sandusky charity-related events, such as flag football fund-raisers coached by Sandusky in March 2002 and April 2004 and another golf event in 2003.
By the time the police questioned McQueary about the shower incident in late 2010, he couldn’t remember exactly when it occurred, and he said that it happened during spring break of 2002, more than a year after the actual date. At the time, McQueary was a 6’ 4”, 220-pound 26-year-old. Some critics would later question why, if he had witnessed horrifying child sexual abuse, he would not have rushed in to put a stop to the behavior.
McQueary’s story changed several times after the police told him that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile, as we will see in Chapter 12. In response to the police telling him that Sandusky was a child molester, McQueary searched his decade-old memory and now “remembered” something that he had not reported back in 2001 -- that he had seen Sandusky with his hips moving against a boy’s backside in the shower.
In short, Mike McQueary did not witness Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower, although he later came to believe that he had. At the time of the incident, he overheard slapping sounds and interpreted them as being sexual.
We know a great deal more about this incident because we know the identity of that boy, a Second Miler named Allan Myers, who was nearly 14 years old at the time, not ten, and who remained friends with Sandusky until after the allegations created a public furor in November 2011. Sandusky later recalled that shower with Myers in a 2013interview with reporter John Ziegler:
“He [Allan] turned on every shower [and] he was like wild, he put soap on himself and was sliding, he was seeing how far he could slide. I remember that. Then we may have been like slapping towels, slap boxing, doing something like that.”
Here Sandusky laughed, remembering that “he [Allan] always, no matter what, he’d always get the last lick in."
Recalling his relationship with Allan Myers, Sandusky said, “He was like family. We did all kinds of things together. We studied. We tutored. We worked out. He went to California with my wife and me twice. He spoke for the Second Mile numerous times.” This all took place after the 2001 shower incident. “He asked me to speak at his high school graduation, and I did. He stayed with us the summer after his high school graduation, worked part-time jobs with classes. He would go home on weekends. We went to his wedding.”
Indeed, Myers, a Marine who had recently received an honorable discharge at the time the allegations broke, came forward to defend Sandusky, telling Sandusky’s lawyer and his investigator, Curtis Everhart, what had actually happened.
Myers, born on Feb. 28, 1987, had endured his parents’ volatile marriage, in which he witnessed his father threatening his mother with a gun. His guidance counselor suggested Myers for the Second Mile program, which he attended as a fourth and fifth grader, getting to know Jerry Sandusky the second year. Myers said that Sandusky was a “father figure” associated with “many positive events” in his life. On “Senior Night” at a West Branch High School football game, Myers asked Sandusky to walk out onto the field with his mother, as the loudspeaker announced, “Father, Jerry Sandusky,” along with his mother’s name.
About the McQueary shower incident, Myers said, "This particular night is very clear in my mind.” In the shower after a workout, he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker area." Myers said that he recalled hearing a locker slam but he never saw who closed it. Although McQueary would later claim that both Sandusky and Myers saw him, neither of them had any idea he was there that night.
Myers repeatedly and emphatically denied that Jerry Sandusky had ever sexually abused him. “Never, ever, did anything like that occur.” Yes, Sandusky had put his hand on his left knee while he was driving, but that didn’t bother him. “I often would stay at Jerry’s home overnight,” he said. “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else. On many occasions there were numerous people at his home. I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.”
The only thing that made Myers feel uncomfortable and violated was his September 2011 interview with Pennsylvania State Police officers. “They would try to put words in my mouth, take my statement out of context. The PSP investigators were clearly angry and upset when I would not say what they wanted to hear. My final words to the PSP were, ‘I will never have anything bad to say about Jerry.’”
Allan Myers also wrote a letter to the newspaper and the Pennsylvania attorney general and submitted a sworn statement to both the Pennsylvania State Police and a private investigator to the effect that he was not abused that night or any other time by Jerry Sandusky.
“I am one of those many Second Mile kids who became a part of Jerry’s ‘family.’ He has been a best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more,” Myers wrote to the attorney general. “We’ve worked together, competed together, traveled together and laughed together. I lived with Jerry and Dottie for three months. Jerry’s been there for me for 13 years; and stood beside me at my senior parent’s football night. I drove twelve hours to attend his mom’s funeral. I don’t know what I would have done without him.”
Myers wrote that letter on May 1, 2011. But like so many Second Milers, Myers subsequently found a lawyer, Andrew Shubin, and joined the throng of those seeking millions of dollars in compensation for alleged abuse. He did not testify at the trial, however. Both prosecution and defense lawyers knew that Allan Myers was the boy in the 2001 McQueary shower incident, but for their own strategic reasons, neither chose to identify him, so that the jury never learned that Myers was in fact the anonymous “Victim Number 2.”
The McQueary story of the alleged sodomy-in-the-shower became the linchpin of the entire case against Sandusky, lighting a fire under the investigation and creating a media firestorm, and it is what led to the firing of Penn State University President Graham Spanier and football Head Coach Joe Paterno, as well as subsequent lawsuits against Spanier and former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.
Ironically, the sodomy charge of “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” in the McQueary incident was among the few for which the jury found Sandusky not guilty, since the witness did not say that he had literally seen penetration. The jury did find Sandusky guilty of four other McQueary-related charges: “indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors and endangering a child's welfare.
Who said it was a confession?
To me, it shows that he was pretty shook up...and no one, outside of someone with a problem, would be that shook up in 98 and then shower with another kid alone at night in 01.
Not unless he was upset because that particular kid was upset. In other words, he thought that kid was an outlier and was concerned that he had upset him. He did not (IMHO) think that the showers themselves were wrong.
What do you think is the reason why he was shook up? I’m guessing (based on your other comments) that you don’t believe it was out of a genuine concern for the kid but rather because he thought there was now a good chance he would be exposed as a child sex offender.
However, Sandusky’s actions immediately following the incident do not appear consistent with that reason. Not only does he keep spending time with that boy (12 years later that boy, now 23, would send Jerry a Happy Fathers Day text saying he thanks God for putting Jerry in his life), he also enables that boy to form close friendships with the other boys he was supposedly grooming/molesting.
It doesn’t make sense that Jerry Sandusky would purposely enable a boy who already once complained to his mom over a relatively minor incident, to form friendship with boys whom Jerry was engaged in penis touching, (V3,V5,V7) and in one case, oral sex! (V4)
That's what convinces me that JS had a problem. Most people would be scared to death and make sure they didn't put themselves in that position again. The only question is the degree of JS's problem.
Guess this is where we differ...I don’t see a pedophile taking a completely unnecessary shower with a naked kid as a “relatively minor incident”. Maybe minor in the grand scheme of things and all of the charges he faced, but not “minor” to me.
Based in everything that we know, what % chance do you give of Jerry being completely innocent and that everything was a misunderstanding?
That’s why I used the term “relatively”. I was comparing it to penis touching and oral sex.
And as I mentioned, the boy himself thought the incident was minor. Even after Sandusky was arrested, he told another accuser (v7) he was still questioning Sandusky’s guilt and felt his mother was pressuring him to testify against Sandusky.
That's a tough question to answer and I honestly have no way to know that.
Based on everything I know, I think it is very likely that he is innocent of anything that doesn't fall into the category of "grooming."
From there, it becomes difficult because "grooming" means you have to know the person's intent. If Jerry did not view himself as a pedophile and was not doing any of this for sexual gratification, then it becomes difficult to claim that he is guilty of any of this.
Yes, there are a handful of posters here that believe the showers (and raspberries on the bellies, wrestling behind wrestling mats in otherwise empty gyms, etc...) that believe them to be innocent acts. There is even at least one poster that believes Jerry had enough testosterone to have sex with his wife 2-4 times a week but not enough to also have sex with boys.
Last edited:
This has been thrown out before and I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the nuances of law. But if I am a gay man, is it OK for me to rub my penis up against a woman since I don’t view myself as a straight man? Or does it matter how the woman feels about this happening?
I think you misunderstand me.
The actions that are not overtly sexual (e.g. putting his hand on the kid's knee in the car, the wrestling, etc) were considered grooming by the courts.
My problem with that is that is either presupposes to know why he was doing those things (i.e. for eventual sexual gratification) or using the logic that "since we (the jury) also believes he committed sexual acts with these boys that these other non-sexual acts must have been grooming". That is somewhat circular logic.
So if Sandusky didn't actually do anything sexual with these boys (which I think is possible, but I don't know), then the grooming charges also go away because, as you rightly said "What do you believe he would have been grooming the boys for?"
And again, I’m not sure that is correct. I don’t know that it is the intent as much as it is the perceived intent.
That's not how the law is written, but IANAL, so if an attorney wants to correct me, I'd be happy to learn more.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-grooming/
Yeah, I don’t fully know the legal side of it.
I do know that if a grown man took my child alone into a shower, picked him up so that his bottom was in the man’s face and had the man’s genitalia rub on him, I don’t think I would be satisfied with the adult saying it wasn’t a sexual thing.
I do know that if a grown man took my child alone into a shower, picked him up so that his bottom was in the man’s face and had the man’s genitalia rub on him, I don’t think I would be satisfied with the adult saying it wasn’t a sexual thing.
Does he believe he actually did the act 2-4 times a week, or just that he claimed the act 2-4 times a week. It’s very common for men to lie about these things, especially one who wouldn’t want a medical condition coming out. I also can’t speak from experience, but that amount of sex at his age seems like a lot for anyone.
There just isn’t enough information out there to know what really happened. I’m always surprised that people have such solid beliefs on either end of the guilt spectrum. The thing that sucks about taking a neutral position in the middle is that just by being open minded, and asking thought provoking questions, you can get attacked by both extremes.
I appreciate your opinion on this. I was describing the legal side of it, in which for it to be grooming it is predicated on it being a sexual act. Therefore, some of the things in question (wrestling, hand on knee, etc) that were considered grooming, might not be grooming if you don't believe there was sexual intent.
I get that. I think that was the issue with the first shower incident. Obviously the mother had an issue with it. Obviously the police were concerned about it, otherwise they wouldn’t have done their “sting” on him. It is very hard to prove sexual intent.
LOL.....my credibility or lack there of didn't ruin the lives of 4 good men.
This isn't about Jerry' s guilt or innocence, its about why Joe and the others were scapegoated when Dranov was found not to be informed of a sex attack.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but every cop, mother, and "victim" do not always tell the truth. He's right.
