Not being a witness ... Was he a mandated reporter in 2001? I know he would be classified as one today in that same situation but I didn't think so in 2001?
Dranov on the stand
- Thread starter jerseylion109
- Start date
Not being a witness ... Was he a mandated reporter in 2001? I know he would be classified as one today in that same situation but I didn't think so in 2001?
I didn't know a bowl payout for a coach was $4 million. Seems a bit excessive.
I'm a mandatory reporter and Dranov was not one then . The victim was not his patient. So let's just stop the mandatory reporter crap .
I've read the 2001 law, he wasn't a mandated reporter back then in this scenario. In fact, no one was. He and John would have had extensive training though that they could rely on.
So when do we hear from MM's girlfriend at the time, whom he allegedly called on the way home from Lasch that night?
Right now we have John Sr and Dranov testifying that Mike tells them about hearing slapping sounds, which he thought were sexual. But never told them he saw any specific activity. (And Dranov testifies that Mike told him something completely different than what Mike claims he saw.) They are explaining it away as him being so upset. Sorry, that still doesn't pass the sniff test.
Right now we have John Sr and Dranov testifying that Mike tells them about hearing slapping sounds, which he thought were sexual. But never told them he saw any specific activity. (And Dranov testifies that Mike told him something completely different than what Mike claims he saw.) They are explaining it away as him being so upset. Sorry, that still doesn't pass the sniff test.
Welcome to whistleblower law. This would have been so easy for PSU to avoid, but alas...
You also have Courtney's testimony which essentially summarizes what MM relayed to Paterno.
In response to PSUcup1:
All I know is that if I suspect child abuse, I have to report it to the authorities (that is the mandatory reporting part). This would be not necessarily witnessing child abuse, but having medical evidence of it.
If it was me hearing this story, I would have advised MM to go to the authorities, not to JoePa, and just have a chat about what may or may not have taken place. I also let him know I would accompany him if it would make him feel more comfortable when talking to the authorities. This is what I believe was the missed opportunity.
Let me rephrase what I meant about Dranov as there is some confusion with regard to semantics. As a physician (at least in Ohio) by definition he would be considered a mandatory reporter - period. However, that is for the patients in his care, not in the case of MM's conversation with him. Dranov had no direct medical evidence (which could be by patient history) or personally witnessed suspected abuse on a patient in his care. All he heard is a second hand account of what may or may not have been child abuse.
All I know is that if I suspect child abuse, I have to report it to the authorities (that is the mandatory reporting part). This would be not necessarily witnessing child abuse, but having medical evidence of it.
If it was me hearing this story, I would have advised MM to go to the authorities, not to JoePa, and just have a chat about what may or may not have taken place. I also let him know I would accompany him if it would make him feel more comfortable when talking to the authorities. This is what I believe was the missed opportunity.
Let me rephrase what I meant about Dranov as there is some confusion with regard to semantics. As a physician (at least in Ohio) by definition he would be considered a mandatory reporter - period. However, that is for the patients in his care, not in the case of MM's conversation with him. Dranov had no direct medical evidence (which could be by patient history) or personally witnessed suspected abuse on a patient in his care. All he heard is a second hand account of what may or may not have been child abuse.
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about?
At what point in my entire lifetime have a ever defended Sassano?
Let alone defend any particular aspect of his behavior in this case?
Are you completely out of your mind? Or, is this just some circus act you like to perpetuate?
Well the accusation, and claim, by the poster stands in CONTRADICTION to what Dr. Dranov himself has stated on the subject! Dr. Dranov has not only stated that he knew he was a "Mandatory Reporter" under "The Law", but that he had also received extensive training on the subject and therefore knew the requirements of the statute quite well, which is why he was called into the situation in the first place at the McQuearys' request (i.e., to dispense ADVICE as to what MM should do next! Once drawn into the situation, he was IN FACT a Mandatory Reporter at that point in time as he himself admits - his advice and recommendation was based on his determination as a Mandatory Reporter that the report did not rise to the level of reporting requirements because CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of CSA did not exist based on what MM reported to him! And that advice was perfectly consistent with that determination - i.e., report it via your HR protocol because police do not need to be called as it does not rise to the level of a "reportable incident".). BTW, we have another poster who claims that only a call to Childline qualifies as an acceptable "report" under the code (i.e., PA Child Protective Services Law) which is absolutely and utterly FALSE - a call to the Police is absolutely an acceptable report especially if you believe "credible evidence" exists that criminal CSA has occurred which is a tautology as all CSA is criminal.
Amazing the level of disgraceful agenda-based defaming, hypocritical accusations and statements that have been made on this board regarding Dr. Dranov imo and it really says something about the morals and principles of our current society! As far as I can tell, Dr. Dranov has not done one damn thing that is inconsistent with any of his action or statements the night of 2/9/2001 or anytime since! "Hearing noises" that you think were produced by sexual activity from 100s of feet away, and through multiple walls/doors, in the hallway as you walked in the building is NOT "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of CSA in the complete absence of any other "evidence", let alone "Direct Evidence", whatsoever!
Withholding it shows "intent" especially in regards to inequitable treatment and persecution (i.e., a desire to punish the party unfairly). That's really what matters in this type of HR case. Now how much the "damages" are is subjective and MM needs to prove what the damages are precisely....but this is only one of many "damages" he is claiming from PSU's persistent actions in regards to the topic.
HOLD ON!!!! If I'm reading this right, and I think I am...Isn't the part that I bolded, underlined, and italicized above a DIRECT violation of the Pennsylvania law that you can't ask about that type of investigation once it's reported?? The same law that everyone slammed Paterno for following when they said he should have done more?
He's having a bad night commenting on posts that he clearly hasn't read.
BTW, I got a copy of the deleted threat from earlier saved on my drive.
I'm talking about statements like these statements:
You are full of it that Sassano and Prosecutors did not become aware of what Dr. Dranov testified to the 30th SWIGJ -- AND THAT IT WAS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE relative to multiple INDICTMENTS, including 100% of the Indictments against C/S/S - especially the "perjury" claims!!! - and demonstrated that MM's EVER CHANGING STORIES and claims were not CONSISTENT....... and that the State's CLAIM that MM was going to provide "Direct Evidence" -- i.e., the OAG's claim that MM was a "highly credible" (and that the SWIGJ he testified to found him "highly credible") "Star Eyewitness" are all CLEARLY FABRICATED LIES, and KNOWN LIES, published by the State via a RIGGED PRESENTMENT to support numerous "malicious prosecution" INDICTMENTS including 100% of the indictments against C/S/S, especially the "perjury charges" brought against Curley and Schultz based on Dranov's statements!
No way, no how, Sassano doesn't know what Dranov's SWIGJ Testimony was and that it was EXCULPATORY in nature relative to tons of the charges, accusations and ULTIMATELY the Presentment and Indictments themselves!!! The LAW and the "Due Process Provisions of both the PA and US Constitutions" does not say that Sassano is entitled to enter his own fantasyland in his efforts to find MM a CREDIBLE, highly un-impugnable provider of DIRECT EVIDENCE - i.e., an "EYEWITNESS" (not merely an unreliable provider of WORTHLESS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!) - your notion that Sassano had "probable cause" based on what MM told him, given how many times he CHANGED important elements of his story AND the EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY of Dr. Dranov (a trained "Mandatory Reporter" who understood the code well and what qualified as a "Reportable Incident" and "Credible Evidence") in regards to what MM reported the NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT, is NONSENSE and bull$hit. Sassano, nor any of the OAG investigators or prosecutors, EVER had "probable cause" as defined by the "DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS OF THE PA & US CONSTITUTIONS" and Sassano (as well as the rest of the scum prosecutorial team) DAMN WELL KNEW THIS, especially after Dr. Dranov and many others, including MM himself, testified to the 30th SWIGJ - you know, the SWIGJ that DIDN'T SEE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PRODUCE A PRESENTMENT OF ANY KIND!!!
BTW, do you remember Centre County ADA Karen Arnold saying that there were elements of how the SWIGJ Process was conducted that are going to come back and bite the OAG Prosecutors in the ass??? Gee, I'm pretty sure we're beginning to see just a small sampling of precisely what she was talking about! Contrary to your notions that Sassano acted in a perfectly acceptable fashion - the reality is that he acted like a "jack-booted Gestapo" in regards to the prosecutorial investigation of this matter which both the PA and US Constitutions theoretically PROTECT AGAINST from a corrupt, POS, morally and ethically retched STATE POLICE OFFICER in regards to his respect for CITIZENS RIGHTS most especially innocent citizens right not to be harassed by a scumbag POS @sshole such as himself!!!
OMG
Seriously dude
Tell the voices inside your head to stop shouting
You're having lengthy arguments with folks about "disagreements" which exist only in your head
Not only that but PSU absolutely DID make a "Qualifying Report" of the incident (we know this, FOR SURE, because PSU made a contemporaneous report to TSM's CEO, a LICENSED CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST, which qualifies under MULTIPLE ELEMENTS OF THE CODE as a "Qualifying Report", including the requirements of a DIRECT AGENT OF DPW [which TSM was] AND the "MANDATORY REPORTER" provisions of the code!!!).
People saying that PSU should have "investigated" The Second Mile (TSM was unquestionably the SOURCE of the party that was with Sandusky) is utter TRIPE and NONSENSE!!! PSU has NO AUTHORITY to investigate any entity, or ANYTHING for that matter, once they go outside PSU's "jurisdiction"! Furthermore, TSM had an OBLIGATION to both investigate AND "report to DPW" via: i) Their own REGULATED & AUDITED Operating Policies & Procedures, ii) The "Direct Agent of DPW" provisions of the PA Child Protective Services Law, iii) Their "License Agreements and Contracts" with the DPW and iv) The "Mandatory Reporter" provisions of PA Child Protective Services Law!!! So the answer to John McQueary's questions would have been precisely what Schultz reported to JM......the matter has been REPORTED and is under investigation, but I can't tell you where it all stands beyond that because I don't know where it stands and I will not know where the investigation ultimately goes from here BY LAW!!! IOW, precisely what you are saying...
"Hearing Noises" is not "DIRECT EVIDENCE" (i.e., "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY") boy-genius and MM testified to this FACT that he was not an "EYEWITNESS" with his own tongue directly to the 30th SWIGJ boy-genius (just as Dranov provided additional EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE relative to tons of the indictments, including 100% of the indictments against C/S/S, especially the Perjury Charges, to the 30th SWIGJ!!!). Your notion that Sassano believed MM's constantly contradictory evidence - he contradicted the State's claim that he was an "EYEWITNESS" with his own tongue in the 30th SWIGJ - constituted "probable cause" or was anything other than utterly worthless "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" is sheer FANTASY, especially under "The Law" as defined by the "Due Process Provisions" of both the PA & US Constitutions.
You should stop listening to voices in your head telling you of your legendary brilliance, because contrary to your claims, Sassano did not have "justification" for his actions NOR did he act in a LEGAL FASHION under the law in regards to his "investigatory tactics" relative to a LARGE NUMBER of the Indictments. Your claims that none of what is currently going on or being testified to in a PA Court of Law, which is highly relevant to the C/S/S prosecutions and why they did not testify in the Sandusky trials (i.e., INTENTIONAL PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT to "rig" the Presentment and its related indictments), is utterly irrelevant to JS's PCRA is equally incorrect, I believe.
OMG
Double the dose, man.
For the love of all that is holy......double the dose.
Well the PSU3 weren't mandatory reporters, either, but the PA OAG charged them anyways.
That's a bit of fiction that some people have been spreading. There's nothing illegal about ASKING. OTOH it's illegal for the people who are conducting the investigation to blab about it.
Diametrically opposite? I think not. Here's what the article stated.
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.
That's basically the same thing he testified to at Sandusky's trial and confirms that he was aware that McQuaery was implying a sexual act was happening in the shower. Dranov even acknowledged that in his own words at Sandusky's trial when asked if Mike had "described seeing any particular sex act?", Dranov replied " No, he did not. He implied that it had gone on with what he talked about with sexual sounds".
It's clear that Dranov was aware that McQueary was referencing a sex act not a horseplay.
Last edited:
For Dranov to have been a mandatory reporter in this incident, he would have had to have some reason to suspect that the child in the shower was a patient of his. That's the way the law was worded then.
Be quiet. You'll ruin Franklin's story about all the in-depth training you received.
Holy Smoly. I actually agree with you on something. Hell must be freezing over.
Exactly which is why it's highly unlikely that he got any sort of "mandatory reporter" training back then.
He does the same thing to me. Makes up stories about how I have supposedly defended the Board of Trustees and Corbett. I don't think I've ever mentioned either one of them in any of my posts but that doesn't stop him.
And another thing. Before you accuse someone of rape, child molestation, raping a child ... Most people operate on the basis you better be damn sure. You even accuse someone of anything so heinous, and you ruin their lives. I'd have to think the line of "are you sure ..." had to have come out of their mouths like 100 times. In that situation, you realize that you are accusing someone of something that would devastate lives. So I'm sure when McQ went home and told Dranov and his Dad what he "thought" he "might" have seen, they responded a bunch of times with "are you sure". It gave McQ ample opportunity to confirm what he did or did not see.
That is not true. If you are used to seeing something you do not register it as weird. Remember, Jerry ran The 2nd Mile, he was ALWAYS around young boys ... that was the 2nd Mile. Now if McQ walked in the shower at 10pm and saw Larry Johnson Sr with a 10 year old boy ... yeah, that would have registered alarm bells as it was out of character and out of the norm. But when a guy you know runs the 2nd Mile Charity, and is always with young boys, it might not register as strange.
Think of your neighborhood. Say you have one guy who is a Boy Scout Leader and is always hosting boy scout camps and events and he has 3-4 boys of his own ..... You walk into his house and find a little 10 year old boy .... Does your mind automatically sound an alarm??? No, probably not.
Now lets say you have another neighbor who is a single guy. No kids, and he really does nothing associated with kids as far as you know. .... You walk into his house and find a little 10 year old boy ... Now chances are that some sort of "this is strange" alarm goes off in your head.
Remember, Jerry started 2nd Mile way back in the late 70's / early 80s. For the better part of 20-30 years people around PSU and State College grew accustomed to seeing Jerry with young boys.
Sorry, but you're full of $hit as per usual and again attempting to insert words and beliefs into Dr. Dranov's mind and mouth that he has directly contradicted including to the 30th SWIGJ and in TODAY'S TESTIMONY!
Here's but one example of today's testimony that proves you're full of $hit and disgracefully inserting thoughts and words into Dr. Dranov's mouth that run DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of what he has stated under oath in a PA Court of Law:
Asked if he thought it was “bad enough” to call police or child welfare agencies that night, Dranov said no.
He also testified today that he gave MM the advice he gave him because what MM described did not rise to a "Reportable Incident" under the Mandatory Reporter codes due to a lack of credible supporting evidence....he supported this position by telling the court he was well-versed in the code and standards of reporting as a TRAINED MANDATORY REPORTER due to his medical practice! So much for your nauseating, putrid & absurdly-hypocritical behavior on here & your disgraceful accusations via the implications of same which amount to nothing but wholesale ad hominem attack "character assassination".
If a slapping sound indicates a sexual act then we all got laid alot more than we thought. Hell, the nuns were sexually abusing me everyday by slapping me.
Last edited:
"Hearing sounds" is "Circumstantial Evidence" and in the absence of any other supporting evidence of any kind, let alone Direct Evidence, does not rise to level of credible evidence - there are literally thousands of explanations for "slapping sounds" that are not sexually-related. Just because MM drew this SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION does not make it incumbent upon Dranov that he share this speculative conclusion, especially in the face of no other evidence whatsoever despite Dranov asking MM repeatedly if he actually saw anything and to tell him what he saw if he had.... MM was completely non-responsive to this repeated direct line of questioning....
Today MM would be THE mandatory reporter period
If he would have went to the Dr and his Dad before reporting, he would risk personal criminal prosecution
Then his next step would not be DrD, his dad nor Joe - it would be to someone else designated within PSU and it would only be to notify that person that he already made a report
Thanks for understanding where I was coming from. I've been frustrated by folks using today's standards to judge the past, as if today's culture is the sole arbiter of all that is good and right.
We need to remember the influence of the "classical movement" (I'm not sure of the right term) where Ancient Greece was held up a a paragon--leading to, for example, nude swimming at the Y (and PSU, among other institutions). It was seen as having a democratizing effect. It wasn't "right" or "wrong" per se--just the culture of the time. Most folks Paterno's or Sandusky's ages would have grown up with that. Current kids didn't. I'm minded of the Beloit Mindset List, here.
BTW, my SIL lives in Avon Lake, so I've been thru Lorain a bit....
You're more well-informed than I was. I had no idea, and I do occasionally work within a pediatric population. I am nearly positive that the state never told me anything about this, and my university employer at the time definitely did not.
In all fairness, I don't think anything Amendola could have done would have made a difference. Jerry's goose was cooked the minute Joe was fired.
