Dranov on the stand
- Thread starter jerseylion109
- Start date
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
Nothing new. It just confirms that John McQueary & Dranov sure didn't think it was sexual (unless inappropriate touching is considered sexual but not sexual enough to call the authorities).
So we're still supposed to believe that MM didn't tell his own father or family friend what he thought he had witnessed, but that he did tell the PSU administrators. Wouldn't Lar or CDW find that curious?
Yup so for the second time the immediate people mike told about this incident didn't think the police should be called
The article failed to mention that the 1998 incident was investigated by DPW.
Sorry, but Dranov's testimony still matches up more with how everyone reacted in 2001, including the kid in the shower before he was paid $3 million dollars of hush money, than what McQueary claimed a decade later.
Dranov, a mandated reporter in his professional duties, when specifically asked if it was bad enough to call the police or child welfare agencies that night, said "no".
Dranov, a mandated reporter in his professional duties, when specifically asked if it was bad enough to call the police or child welfare agencies that night, said "no".
So Dranov wasn't a mandated reporter, because he didn't witness anything, he also doesn't think it was bad enough to call the police... But people think Paterno was supposed to call the police when he got a watered down version the next day.
Is anyone else surprised that Dranov was so familiar with PSU procedures? That seems a little odd, he wasn't a PSU employee was he? No one seems to be upset with him following university procedure he probably wasn't even actually familiar with. Despite the fact that he was infinitely more qualified to handle the situation than Paterno, and heard a non-watered down version the night of the incident.
Isn't this a perfectly reasonable course of action? If that wasn't good enough, why didn't Dranov or anyone protest at the time?
That takes care of that. So all the asshat blockheads who continually reference Joe's (out of context, without inflection) 'sexual nature' quote made TEN YEARS LATER, well, they can all go to hell.
Not to mention... Let's say that MM was too rattled to tell the who story. Wouldn't he open up with more details to his dad and Dranov a few days or weeks later after he settled down emotionally? Why would he continue to leave them in the dark? And if he did open up later, why wouldn't those two be more forceful with Shultz about calling the authorities?
This doesn't come close to passing the smell test. Seems to me that either MM never talked about sexual abuse, or he did and MM's dad and Dranov are covering their own rear ends for not doing more.
Its not just that, its confirmation MM would have had to change his story for C&S to above and beyond what he actually witnessed.
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.
Ok, based on this I just want answers to the following questions:
Why were C/S/S charged?
Why was Paterno's reputation and legacy shredded?
Why have the last 5 years happened?
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
Ok, based on this I just want answers to the following questions:
Why were C/S/S charged?
Why was Paterno's reputation and legacy shredded?
Why have the last 5 years happened?
Last edited:
No human being in their right mind with any kind of moral values, would believe that you shouldn't call the cops when you find a naked middle aged man in a shower with a child, naked, at 10pm at night.
Not a single soul.
Not a single soul.
Joe liked Mike McQueary. If he knew Mike was in the difficult situation he would try to be helpful. That's how I explain his willingness to talk about "sexual nature" in addition to that phrase being planted with him by investigators. Clearly, he really didn't know "what you would call it."
Because Penn State wouldn't fight back. Spanier's statement was on the right track and they are still disowning it. All they had to do was presume the innocence of their employees.
I am looking forward to christine brennan's honest and unbiased coverage of these latest developments.
Pretty amazing that this isn't a bigger deal. You have the first two people MM spoke too saying it wasn't bad enough to call the police, yet Paterno is destroyed for reporting it up the chain
Affiliation agreement? "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."
Now that's the way to close a deal. Isn't there another word for that?
Now that's the way to close a deal. Isn't there another word for that?
Why didn't Sandusky's attorney bring this up at trial?
Well, in 2001, immediately after the incident, there were two Doctors and a 6'5" witness that disagree with you.
And for what it's worth, a kid that said to the Newspapers, the police, the acting Attorney General, and a Defense Investigator that he was the kid in the shower, Sandusky was like a father to him, and McQueary was "not telling the truth" about 2001.
I disagree. Context and hindsight play a critical role here. We see Jerry now as a monster. People did not see him as a monster when this incident took place.
As a teacher of 28 years, our training/instruction in a case of abuse, physical or sexual, was to report no matter what. CYA all the way. We report to human services and they would take it from there. Get it off our plate, and let them do the investigating.
Now, IF Dranov and JMcQ were really told it was anything close to being sexual, they (or I based on my training) should have reported. Even showering with a young boy would have been enough for me to report.
Then, Dranov comes back with this in the article....
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.”
Am I missing something? How can it not be serious enough to call the night of, but then "potentially" serious enough to want good followup?
OL
Now, IF Dranov and JMcQ were really told it was anything close to being sexual, they (or I based on my training) should have reported. Even showering with a young boy would have been enough for me to report.
Then, Dranov comes back with this in the article....
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.”
Am I missing something? How can it not be serious enough to call the night of, but then "potentially" serious enough to want good followup?
OL
Last edited:
So, if John McQueary felt compelled to tell Schultz later on that this was a potentially serious incident, then why did he feel compelled to tell his own son the night of the incident that there was no need to call police or do anything that night about it?
“He said the same thing exactly since day one,” Sassano testified. “From day one he believed he saw sodomy. He saw what he believed to be penetration from 20 feet away. He believed he saw an act of sodomy. He couldn’t say 100 percent because he did not see insertion. He said that from the get-go.”
Except that it would have been physically IMPOSSIBLE to be occurring based on the fact MM said both were standing upright with their feet on the ground....how does no one ever question this B.S.???
He said from day one he believed he saw sodomy yet Dr. Dranov didn't thing it was bad enough to call police or child services....hmmm....something's not adding up here? Could it be that MM is completely full of crap and is playing revisionist history?? I think so..
Except that it would have been physically IMPOSSIBLE to be occurring based on the fact MM said both were standing upright with their feet on the ground....how does no one ever question this B.S.???
He said from day one he believed he saw sodomy yet Dr. Dranov didn't thing it was bad enough to call police or child services....hmmm....something's not adding up here? Could it be that MM is completely full of crap and is playing revisionist history?? I think so..
Last edited:
Because they had no time to prepare a defense. They had 12k pages of discovery dumped on them as jury selection was beginning, including an exculpatory tape of the crying janitor they never heard.
Maybe in a little bit of a gray area there. Applying the old Archimedean Lever to maximize the business relationship.
Last edited:
WeR0206, and anyone else, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the drawing of the shower room show MM could not have seen them at all? Even reflecting through the mirror would have had a shower wall blocking the full view of the showers, IIRC. And, I recall MM saying it was two glances at 1-3 seconds each.
This is getting even more nucking futs.
OL
This is getting even more nucking futs.
OL
Because MM couldn't help him with the affiliation agreement but Schultz could?
"Day 1" for Sassano would be - I believe - sometime in 2010(?)........or whenever he first interviewed MM?
Which would be relevant to the issues at hand in this trial in what way?
[FWIW: that's an obvious hypothetical - with the answer being NO WAY AT ALL]
I understand that Sassano was referencing Day 1 for him, however if MM isn't playing revisionist history then it shouldn't matter when "day 1" starts. MM is claiming his story has NEVER changed from 2001 to present and that he told Sassano the same story in 2010 as he told C/S in 2001. That he was certain sodomy was occurring and reported is as such at the time. That's completely in-congruent with what Dr. D just testified to today and in the past.
I've felt the same way from the beginning of this. If PSU holds a press conference where they step up to the plate for their employees to be seen as innocent until proven guilty , where would we be now? If they said that we are going to allow the legal system to play out before we issue any kind of in house punishment, CSS have not gone to court to date because they are innocent!
Because the guy who represented Sandusky was apparently a really shitty attorney.
Gee, that's odd because "UncleLibel-everyone" told me this morning that Dr. Dranov clearly "realized" that MM was reporting sexual assault??? Odd that Dr. Dranov would say the diametric opposite on the stand with his own mouth, LMFAO!!!!
She, like the rest of the media, will simply ignore it.
If Dranov had said yes- it would be front page headlines condemning Penn State again. Since he said no- it will simply be ignored.
Frankly, if you're a jury evaluating for 'reasonable doubt' in the pending CSS case- I think it's just been delivered to the defense on a silver platter.
Dranov's statement is damning to the Commonwealth's case. Here's a family friend of MM, a respected physician well aware of child abuse reporting protocols, someone completely independent of Penn State, and a person who actually heard MM's original report that night of the incident............and his story (at least what's been reported here) is more in line with CSS testimony than with MM's testimony.
Last edited:
And this should also kill the Clery Act nonsense.
The only witness, and he didn't describe it as a crime to those he talked to first, and knew best.
Further proof that psu would be nothing today if it weren't for Paterno - he was the only one that could lead with vision and guts. Imagine where this dump of a university would be without Paterno? And yes I called it a dump because it beat the hardest on a weak old man when he was being mercilessly crucified after he had carried the damn place on his back for nearly 50 years.
http://movie-sounds.org/war-movie-sound-clips/sound-clips-from-stalag-17-1953/except-he-beat-hardest
Last edited:
Exactly! So either MM didn't tell him about assault or he did and Dranov is covering his rear. No other possible explanation.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
"In emails to former chief deputy attorney general Jonelle Eshbach and Sassano, McQueary said that “national media and public opinion has totally, in every single way ruined me. For what?” He expressed concerns about media reports that suggested he should be charged with a crime, which Sassano reassured him would not happen."
Because it's not a crime to be yella.....
Because it's not a crime to be yella.....
Did Freeh's crack all-star team of investigators talk to the good doctor, one wonders?
