You think it's strange to be pissed off that some knew of a pedophile doing sexual things to boys and didn't report it? You think it's weird to be pissed because that inaction also led to massive hits to the University's reputation and bank account?
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
You really seem to know everything about this case. What do you make of this ~> https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/cnn-headline-on-paterno.183210/page-8#post-2969601
Except, no one "knew" that JS was doing sexual things to these boys until 10 freaking years later, even with that in mind they DID REPORT IT. Even JR said that Curley taking MM's vague ass report to TSM was an appropriate avenue. If MM "knew" in 2001 then there's no explanation for his dad and Dr. D saying that what MM reported the very night of the incident wasn't bad enough to involve police/CYS and no explanation for MM's complete lack of push back when PSU followed up a few days after MM's pow wow with C/S with an action plan that didn't involve someone from UPPD coming to get MM's written statement so JS could be arrested and questioned, etc..
Apparently MM was fine with JS having his guest privleges revoked and the report forwarded to mandatory reporters at TSM.
Apparently MM was fine with JS having his guest privleges revoked and the report forwarded to mandatory reporters at TSM.
Well Mike McQueary telling you that he saw 2 authorized users in Lasch the night before - one of them a child with JS - and that they were specifically using the shower.......and that he is here as a result of a conversation with his father and Dr. Dranov the night before and they recommended that he make an HR Report to his employer.....etc.... And then he goes on to tell his tale including that he did not call police from the scene based on what he saw and experienced....and then, his father and Dr. Dranov recommended that he make this reporting rather than call the police despite Mike telling them explicitly that Jerry was still at Lasch with the child as far as he knew..... It is absurd, antithetical and ILLOGICAL to say that this reporter has just given you "reasonable suspicion to believe that a child was being harmed or abused".
Are you really attempting to claim that a LISTENER to this story WELL AFTER THE FACT should assume that the Reporter, his father and Dr. Dranov all just wantonly committed Felon Obstruction of Justice under PA Law by INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY NOT CALLING AUTHORITIES in regards to a an obvious crime where a CHILD is suffering harm that could have been prevented, or limited, but was not due to their reprehensible lack of concern and action???
Are you familiar with the PA Obstruction of Justice Code as it applies to "Accessory After the Fact" and "Aiding & Abetting" crimes for such negligent disregard involving either a firearm or criminal act where a VICTIM suffers bodily harm (let alone a child victim)??? Beyond absurd, inane, antithetical and ILLOGICAL to claim that a listener to this story should assume that the reporter, his father and a highly-intelligent respected member of the community who is a "Trained Mandatory Reporter" under CPSL, Dr. Dranov, are all Felons and the police should be called immediately to arrest not only JS, but the reporter, his father and Dr. Dranov as well?!?!
Which is partly why the vast majority of reported incidents go ignored.
Why don't you give us the pie chart of blame. Who get's what %?
Mine is 99.9% Jerry Sandusky, 0.075% MM, 0.025% JR
Did he know a pedophile was doing things? I know, I know, he said "sexual nature" 10 years after......... lfmao.
He did report it to his superiors.
You can be pissed about the inaction all you like. You weren't there and you didn't have to decide what to do. You get an A+ for after the fact just like so many newly formed experts on what should have been done.
The University only has itself to blame for its reputation. They willfully allowed a narrative to be created that "everyone knew" that Sandusky was sodomizing and fellating young boys and did precisely nothing about it in order to preserve football and the good works of JVP...... I'm afraid that narrative is a bit too dramatic, but the University didn't fight the original "culture of silence" BS, the Freeh Report or the NCAA sanctions. Each moment implicit acceptance building on the last. Each moment an self absorbed ass stood up to be more self absorbed than the previous.
For the gajillionth time, Mike McQueary was in no way, shape or form clear about what occurred. How you can state your position given the information below is astonishing.
- Dranov asked McQ several times what he saw and Mike's mouth couldn't utter words to describe it.
- Mike himself said that he told Paterno a softball story
- Dranov and Sr McQ testified that what they were told that night did not warrant a call to police (or, presumably, authorities)
- The actions of C, S, P, McQ Sr and Dranov, who all heard it straight from McQ at different times, all reacted the same way. That was at least three separate conversations MMcQ had and the only rationale conclusion is that he was not clear with anyone.
I'm sorry, but that is why the public thinks you people are crazy. The BOT did a horrible job of responding to the scandal, but they did not cause the mess. The mess was caused by the inaction of those involved in 2001.
For the gajillionth time, MM was clear enough to Paterno that Joe knew is was something sexual between a man and a child. That is all the info you need to know that this should have been reported so that it could be properly investigated.
And as I have said, Dranov failed as a mandatory reporter. I believe that @Connorpozlee agrees with me on that point.
I know that you're not just playing an a-hole.
You're the one claiming simultaneously his job was to make sure they had enough toner for the printers and the payroll reports were done AND he orchestrated a coverup for over a decade fora crime that wasn't his business to know about in the first place.
Ahh... the old "everyone else thinks your crazy" response. Got a link for that?
This mess was caused by Jerry Sandusky. PERIOD. Those involved in 2001 at PSU acted appropriately, the BOT did a horrible job and this became a PSU scandal. Sorry you don't like the truth.
Yes exactly. The troll defenders of the corrupt and indecent are engaging in a well-known "logical fallacy" known as "hindsight bias" or alternatively "creeping determinism" (HIT THE LINK). Essentially, in this specific situation the trolls are willy-nilly applying facts, events and determinations that happened more than a DECADE after the event in 2001 to be readily available to parties at the time, when this information, without question, was not available to anyone involved in 2001! The biggest completely bass ackwards "conclusions" these tools continually make is the nonsense about McQueary going to Paterno to make a "Police Report" of "seeing" and eyewitnessing "a 10 year old child being subjected to anal-rape intercourse at Lasch the night before by Jerry Sandusky" when:
- Mike McQueary's, John McQueary's and Dr. Dranov's under oath testimony to both the GJ and At-Trial UNEQUIVOCALLY stated (again, not just 1 of them, but all 3 100% in agreement and consistent with one-another) that Mike McQueary went to JVP to make an ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO HIS EMPLOYER VIA HIS HR CHANNEL after discussing the matter the night-before WHILE IT WAS IN-PROGRESS and DETERMINING that Police DID NOT NEED TO BE CALLED for this matter! (IOW, none of the 3 ADULT men believed the incident involved a crime, let alone the beyond OBVIOUS CRIME of the "anal-rape of a 10 year old"!).
- Mike McQueary told every single AFTER THE FACT party he spoke with that neither he himself called 911/Police from the scene based on what he saw and experienced NOR did his father OR Dr. Dranov call 911/Police despite him telling them that the event was still IN-PROGRESS and JS was still at Lasch with the child (i.e., the child was still AT-RISK and in the isolated-custody of the child rapist, but no call to 911/Police???).
The facts of the matter as they stood in 2001 are quite clear - the AFTER THE FACT hearers of Mike's story FULLY UNDERSTOOD that he was coming to make an ADMINISTRATIVE HR REPORT to his EMPLOYER regarding something that happened after accessing his workplace after hours with regard to another KNOWN AUTHORIZED user of the facility and it is absurd, antithetical, inane and illogical to posit that they would believe Mike was attempting to make a "criminal report" with them.
In addition, given this clear indisputable fact, it is again inane, absurd, antithetical and ILLOGICAL to believe that the 2nd Point above would not have the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE effect on the listener than the trolls are claiming! IOW, one would assume that based on Mike's recounting and that he did not call 911/Police from the scene NOR did his father or Dr. Dranov call 911/Police despite Mike telling them the incident WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS at Lasch.....and his father and Dr. Dranov explicitly recommending that 911/Police not be called, but instead going to bed and making an AFTER THE FACT Administrative HR Report via his employer at his earliest convenience, which is precisely what he was doing.....the listener would REASONABLY CONCLUDE that no criminal sexual assault of the child occurred, let alone "anal-rape"?!?!
Last edited:
The public thinks I'm crazy? Hmmm, all the people I've met over the years... Most of them are more surprised to find out that the police had Sandusky in 1998 and let him off the hook. Most of the public is utterly uniformed. They simply bought what the media sold them.
Most of the public are rational people. When you ask them, "do you really think "everyone knew" exactly what Sandusky was doing for all that time and ignored it in the name of football?" The answer is "no". Some laugh at the proposition... In other words, much of the public realizes just how preposterous the narrative is especially when you count the number of individuals involved in the "conspiracy of silence."
Does the media objectively position themselves to represent this? No. They want the juice. They want the drama. The public knows this. The media likely knows it, but also knows that an objective story on the mess will go no where.
Three questions:
1. You know this very well too. Paterno also remarked, "I don't know what you'd call it". That doesn't sound like he knew what occurred. Why do you always chose to ignore that fact?
2. Why does it make sense to you that six people heard directly from mike McQ on at least three separate occasions and all acted exactly the same in 2001?
3. Regardless of the path it took to get there, the situation was indeed reported to Jack Raykovitz who had an obligation to act on it. In that regard, Paterno is not the failure you claim him to be. That is because Paterno's actions did indeed put in to motion the reporting of Sandusky to an organization that had legal responsibility to investigate the allegation. That didn't happen. That is not JoePa's fault. That isn't even Mike McQ's fault. That fault lies only with Dr Jack and the TSM. Will you now retract and state that you have unfairly and unjustly blamed Paterno?
Chances are you evade these questions as you have so many other direct questions from other posters.
I'll be honest with you, your claim that Mike McQueary telling anyone well AFTER THE FACT that he himself, his father and Dr. Dranov conclusively decided that 911/Police did not need to be called while the incident was still IN-PROGRESS and assistance could be sent to relieve the victim, apprehend the criminal and preserve the crime scene for evidence..... would make the listener more suspicious that something criminal happened AND NOT LESS - INFINITELY LESS - is factually beyond ILLOGICAL, antithetical, absurd and inane. Especially when NONE of the 3 were charged by the OAG who did bring charges against C/S/S for FTR under CPSL which was summarily dismissed and thrown-out due to its inanity and non-applicability!
I agree with you on Dranov's failure in retrospect. As I sit here today, I don't think Mike ever told anybody at the time that he saw something sexual. At least nobody reacted to his information at the time as though he did.
Zeno my apologies what did I like earlier?
As for fact checking plenty of folks have taken liberties with "facts" on both sides of the debate. When or if I have a question about s fact I try to ask the poster jimmy w to clarify things for me or fact check things. He's been gracious enough to do so on several occasions.
I typically don't interject her often as it stirs the pot and serves no real purpose at this point. I am very comfortable with what the record shows and with how mike has handled the situation through six years and counting.
As for fact checking plenty of folks have taken liberties with "facts" on both sides of the debate. When or if I have a question about s fact I try to ask the poster jimmy w to clarify things for me or fact check things. He's been gracious enough to do so on several occasions.
I typically don't interject her often as it stirs the pot and serves no real purpose at this point. I am very comfortable with what the record shows and with how mike has handled the situation through six years and counting.
OK, so then we agree... she did not HAVE to publish it. She simply wanted to, because she thought it would further her career, regardless if that narrative puts children in harms way. "Clicks over kids"
Now on to part 2 that you conveniently ignored. Why is it OK that she only publishes the new information that helps her narrative, and ignores the info that destroys it?
Dukie, I'm asking this honestly. If he had it to do over again, would your brother have called the police on the spot?
Not according to COURT PROVEN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE from Mike McQueary HIMSELF At-Trial in multiple trials. You keep claiming that there is a shred of ADMISSIBLE COURT-PRODUCED EVIDENCE of this claim by you which is utter BULL$HIT and there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE on the ACTUAL COURT RECORD at any of these TRIALS be it JS or the C/S/S cases! 100% of these trials have EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY and COURT-PRODUCED EVIDENCE of the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what you claim the OAG proved in court! Go figure!
First of all, the Paterno's GJ Statement that you keep referencing has 3 citations where in the discreet response you are talking about where he explicitly states I DON'T KNOW what MM saw in the shower because he didn't tell me.....and then goes on to say that the only thing he knows is that MM clearly thought it was "INAPPROPRIATE". You also skip the part about Mike McQueary telling him that he didn't call 911/Police from the scene based on what he saw NOR did his father or Dr. Dranov recommend calling 911/Police based on what Mike told them despite Mike telling them that the incident was still IN-PROGRESS at Lasch!....and his father's and Dr. Dranov's recommendation BASED ON WHAT MIKE TOLD THEM was to go to bed and make an Administrative HR Report to his Employer at his earliest convenience which is what he was doing!
Again, 100% of the COURT-ESTABLISHED, ADMISSIBLE, CROSS-EXAMINED EVIDENCE out Mike McQueary's own mouth, the supposed "star State Witness" is 100% CONSISTENT with Paterno's claim that he DID NOT KNOW what MM saw in the shower BECAUSE MM DID NOT TELL HIM WHAT HE SAW - IOW, the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what you are claiming you insufferable, lying, spinning, obtuse, defender of the corrupt douchebag! Again, 100% of Mike McQueary's under-oath testimony both AT-TRIAL as well as the GJ CONFIRMS and SUPPORTS JVP's STATEMENT that he DID NOT KNOW what was going on in the shower, other than MM thinking it was "inappropriate", BECAUSE MM DID NOT TELL HIM -- IOW, MM TESTIFIED MULTIPLE TIMES that he NEVER told JVP anything about seeing a specific Criminal Sexual Assault Act or gave him any description beyond that he saw JS in the shower with the boy and found JS's behavior very "inappropriate"!
1) In college, I knew when my roommate was having sex because of sexual sounds. I could not tell you exactly what he was doing with whatever girl he had that night, but I knew it was sexual. Understand?
2) The Paterno testimony, MM's testimony, the police report and the documents from councel all point to suspected CSA. The only ones referring to "horseplay" where those that had something to lose.
3) Jack failed. However, jack is not the police. Jack is not childline. Just taking it to him is not adequate.
appreciate you posting and your position. Its a mess and the only one to really blame is JS. Everyone else is a victim, more or less.
He is the head of finance. One of the University leaders. NOT a cop. Zero authority to make an arrest or start an investigation. So yes, it makes sense, as a leader of the organization, to make notes on this. Not as a detective.
1) How long did those sounds last? Did you have a shower in your room? How did your room compare in size to the Lasch locker room?
2) The things you list don't say what you think they say. How doesn't everyone involved have something to lose?
3) Then your beef is with MM, he is the only one who was capable of calling the police or making it an administrative issue. Jack should have known to call childline, that is HIS failure. What you fail to grasp is that the failures occurred at the beginning and end of the reporting chain.
I thought you posted this just two months ago:
"Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA."
Then would would anyone recommend the eyewitness of an alleged crime that occurred on campus speak to him about it?
That's a loaded question for McQ.
Given that Mike has painted the picture that he saw CSA in action, he would absolutely say, 'With the benefit of hindsight, I surely would have called the police immediately'.
The difficulty is, and why it is a loaded question, is that Mike was never certain what he actually witnessed/heard and certainly not clear about it to others.
Well, that's why asked it. I didn't really expect an answer to the question but thought I'd take a shot. I respect dukie for at least providing the answer he did.
Well it's nice to know that you can accept -- if not necessarily agree with -- my criticism, such as it was, of Joe. Like I said, when it comes to Joe, a lot of people insist on seeing things in all black-or-white terms.
Some of those on the "white" side of that line placed Joe on a pedestal a long time ago and have a tremendous emotional investment in keeping him there. All facts and evidence are dutifully shoehorned to fit inside their predetermined conclusions.
Now, as for "moving on," what exactly is achieved by the endless relitigation of the issue, going round and round in the same circle, year after year? To whose lives and reputations do you refer? Joe's? Others who bear some degree of either legal OR moral responsibility for the disaster?
Seriously. I don't mean these as smart-aleck or gotcha questions. I'd just like to know who is served by not moving on, what ethical obligation you think we have to whomever those people might be, and how exactly we can be of assistance to them.
1,. Amuse the forum, please. Please put in to words what a "sexual sound" is between a 12-year old boy and a grown man? In your college room, you already knew a man and a woman were in the room, in the bed, and under the covers. I'm sure that you had several minutes or more to conclude what activity was happening. McQ had maybe 3 seconds at most upon entering the locker room foyer and you want to believe that without visual contact he was able to hear the sounds of a grown man sodomizing a boy over the sound of running water. That's really the story you are choosing to believe?
2. PAterno's 'testiony' was never cross examined by anyone. Moreover, why are you discounting two people - SrMcQ and Dranov - who testified that what they were toldf did not warrant a call to anyone? What do they have to lose? Iff anything, you would have thought that they would have supported Mike. Instead, the directly contradicted what Mike stated.
3. You are simply wrong. Jack had a legal duty and an obligation to investigate the allegation. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. A proper authority was notified. it was one of several authorities, in fact, that could have been called upon.
You argument is based on ignoring certain facts.
