Dranov on the stand

[Kiber]

"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....

Absolutely correct. And remember, when McQ goes home and tells Dad and the DR about the incident they are calm, cool, composed ... they are just hearing McQ's version of the story. They would have no emotional baggage directing their opinion. They took what McQ had to say and decided that a) it did not qualify to be reported as a Mandatory Reporter, and b) it did not qualify to notify the police.

Think about that. Most reasonable, sane, sober and responsible adult males would probably error on the side of caution IF they felt the safety of a child was at stake. You are Dad and you are Dr. Dranov, it's 10pm and Mike walks into the house and tells you this story. Mike is worked up, but you hear Mike out ..... You then make the conscientious decision that the child was NOT in danger, the child was NOT in harms way ... and you decide NOT to call the police. I would think that most reasonable grown men, if they thought a child had even a 1% chance of harm, would decide to call the police. IMO .... this aspect speaks volumes. IMO.... it is not so much "words" but "actions". The ACTIONS of Dad and Dranov tell me that whatever Mike told them that evening was not bad enough to do anything about it, other then tell Mike to call Joe in the morning.

 

[Kiber]

What about "Mom McQuery " ????

I know she would be a hearsay witness. But one thing I find odd about the whole shower-night incident is that there is no reference to "Mom". All of us married guys -- with kids --- know that nothing ... and I mean NOTHING ... happens with the kids without Mom knowing.

So on the night of the shower incident, Mike sees something and it upsets him. He comes home at 10pm that night and at his house is his Dad and Dr. Dranov (a family friend) .... but not Mom ??? But then Mike proceeds to tell his Dad and Dr. Dranov what he sees. Maybe Mom was not home till later that night?? But per Mike's story he was very emotionally upset. The next day does Mike see Mom??? Because if he was so emotionally upset the night before, obviously he would have some emotional carry over the next day. And Mom does not hear about it? Mom does not sense it? Mom does not get told about it?? I don't know about you guys, but if something really bad happened to one of my kids, and I kept it from my wife, when she eventually found out there would be total hell to pay.

I guess what I am asking is that thru this timeline how did Mike explain what he saw to his Mom? How did Dad explain to his wife what their son saw? Are we to believe that Mom was kept totally clueless about this for 10+ years ?????

 

[delcoLion]

Because MM couldn't help him with the affiliation agreement but Schultz could?

Isn't that ... blackmail?

 

[getmyjive11]

Is it, or does he have a different motive?

What do you think my "motive" is?

 

[getmyjive11]

That's complete BULL$HIT!!! Dranov has never said that he himself came to the same CONCLUSIONS and ASSUMPTIONS regarding the "noises" that MM drew and told him about. Dr. Dranov saying that MM drew the conclusion that the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE regarding "the noises he heard" has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what Dr. Dranov BELIEVED was causing the noises or what they proved, if anything whatsoever. Dr. Dranov clearly reached the conclusion that "the noises" were IRRELEVANT without any kind of VISUAL EYEWITNESS CONFIRMATION - a PERFECTLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION and one that would be shared by a criminal court regarding such CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that is completely UNSUPPORTED by DIRECT EVIDENCE of any kind!!!

Utter nonsense and bull$hit that MM made any kind of statement that he WITNESSED a sexual assault based upon what Dr. Dranov has clearly stated REPEATEDLY at this point and was 100% CONSISTENT with his RECOMMENDATION TO MM AT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION - report it via your workplace HR Protocol as "Suspicious Activity In The Workplace"; the Police DO NOT NEED TO BE CALLED BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE REPORTED TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY ARE YOU USING CAPS!!?!?!!??!?!?!??!

It's not the public's duty to determine if suspicious activity is criminal or not.

 

[royboy]

WHY ARE YOU USING CAPS!!?!?!!??!?!?!??!

It's not the public's duty to determine if suspicious activity is criminal or not.

Now what does that mean?

Every day, reasonable people see something unusual, or even suspicious, and don't see a need to contact the police. They evaluate what information they have and make choices. Dranov and McQueary's dad talked to Mike, and then saw no need to contact the police. How can you reasonably question their actions?

 

[wensilver]

What about "Mom McQuery " ????

I know she would be a hearsay witness. But one thing I find odd about the whole shower-night incident is that there is no reference to "Mom". All of us married guys -- with kids --- know that nothing ... and I mean NOTHING ... happens with the kids without Mom knowing.

So on the night of the shower incident, Mike sees something and it upsets him. He comes home at 10pm that night and at his house is his Dad and Dr. Dranov (a family friend) .... but not Mom ??? But then Mike proceeds to tell his Dad and Dr. Dranov what he sees. Maybe Mom was not home till later that night?? But per Mike's story he was very emotionally upset. The next day does Mike see Mom??? Because if he was so emotionally upset the night before, obviously he would have some emotional carry over the next day. And Mom does not hear about it? Mom does not sense it? Mom does not get told about it?? I don't know about you guys, but if something really bad happened to one of my kids, and I kept it from my wife, when she eventually found out there would be total hell to pay.

I guess what I am asking is that thru this timeline how did Mike explain what he saw to his Mom? How did Dad explain to his wife what their son saw? Are we to believe that Mom was kept totally clueless about this for 10+ years ?????

It was in court testimony that Anne answered the house phone when Mike called, gave the phone to her husband who then spoke with Mike. Anne retreated to the kitchen. IIRC Trial testimony has conflicting statements on when Mike got to the house - Mike's conversation with his dad either happened in the living room or the bedroom.

JMHO - but if either of my kids (who are roughly the same age now as Mike was) called the house, then came to the house in a panic that evening - I would be damned sure to find out what it was all about.

 

[getmyjive11]

Now what does that mean?

Every day, reasonable people see something unusual, or even suspicious, and don't see a need to contact the police. They evaluate what information they have and make choices. Dranov and McQueary's dad talked to Mike, and then saw no need to contact the police. How can you reasonably question their actions?

I think that the combination of sexual sounds, a visibly upset witness and a man and a boy naked in a shower is reason enough to contact police.

 

[jerseylion109]

I would agree but dranov and mms dad thought otherwise

 

[indynittany]

I think that the combination of sexual sounds, a visibly upset witness and a man and a boy naked in a shower is reason enough to contact police.

Would you have been OK if Jerry had his swim trunks on?

 

[getmyjive11]

Would you have been OK if Jerry had his swim trunks on?

He can still molest a boy with his swim trunks on. It's the police's job to determine if anything nefarious occurred; let them do their job.

 

[royboy]

I think that the combination of sexual sounds, a visibly upset witness and a man and a boy naked in a shower is reason enough to contact police.

How nice to arrive at that conclusion now. You were not there.

Two sober and responsible adults listened and asked questions and didn't come to that conclusion. You can re-state your opinion again and again from years after the fact but that's nothing more than hindsight, and your own agenda.

 

[Lisa1994]

Shoot-today's the day to be down there. Harmon and Spanier are both up.

 

[lionlurker]

I think that the combination of sexual sounds, a visibly upset witness and a man and a boy naked in a shower is reason enough to contact police.

So you are saying that you would have done something within the next ten years, or so? How visibly upset must one be before they are likely to not wait a decade before doing something?

 

[getmyjive11]

How nice to arrive at that conclusion now. You were not there.

Two sober and responsible adults listened and asked questions and didn't come to that conclusion. You can re-state your opinion again and again from years after the fact but that's nothing more than hindsight, and your own agenda.

It's not hindsight at all. MM told them about the sexual sounds that night. He told them about Sandusky and a boy in a shower. He was visibly upset. That could see/hear all of that for themselves yet they decided to go tell a football coach about the incident instead of the police. Where the hell is the common sense in that? Why aren't you upset about that?

 

[lionlurker]

Shoot-today's the day to be down there. Harmon and Spanier are both up.

How much cross-examination goes on in these things?

I guess it doesn't matter. There are certain questions that the university will not want asked, anyhow.

 

[getmyjive11]

So you are saying that you would have done something within the next ten years, or so? How visibly upset must one be before they are likely to not wait a decade before doing something?

It's not like I am defending MM. IMO, all of the people involved with this are massive failures.

 

[lionlurker]

It's not like I am defending MM. IMO, all of the people involved with this are massive failures.

Hindsight is 50/50. If they are wrong, they get their asses sued off. And they aren't going to risk that based on a vague report that apparently conveyed next to nothing definitive.

 

[getmyjive11]

Hindsight is 50/50. If they are wrong, they get their asses sued off. And they aren't going to risk that based on a vague report that apparently conveyed next to nothing definitive.

They would not get sued for this, that is absurd. There is a difference between filing a false police report and reporting suspected activity.

 

[royboy]

It's not hindsight at all. MM told them about the sexual sounds that night. He told them about Sandusky and a boy in a shower. He was visibly upset. That could see/hear all of that for themselves yet they decided to go tell a football coach about the incident instead of the police. Where the hell is the common sense in that? Why aren't you upset about that?

It is hindsight.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I think that the combination of sexual sounds, a visibly upset witness and a man and a boy naked in a shower is reason enough to contact police.

Pefect example right there - you claim the sounds were sexual, what's that based on? MM's attribution of the sounds is CONJECTURING as the legal definition of such EVIDENCE makes clear - it is utter irrelevant and to be ignored (that is the jury instruction for such evidence) if reasonable conclusions could be draw in either direction that suggest guilt or innocence! IOW, there is ZERO reason within the law or the code for Dr. Dranov to come to the SAME CONJECTURED CONCLUSION regarding the sounds as MM did! In fact, the law (and again Dr. Dranov self-admittedly states he had Mandatory Reporting Training and was very familiar with the code) says that it is eminently reasonable to ignore such evidence when it is completely unsupported by any other evidence of any kind as it is not a CREDIBLE CONCLUSION based simply on that stand-alone information and evidence.

So again, do tell how Dr. Dranov knew they were "sexual sounds" because in your post you clearly state he did by saying "the combination of sexual sounds....", because in his testimony, including yesterday and at the SWIGJ, Dr. Dranov has been consistent in saying the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE - he was completely UNCONVINCED that the source of the sounds was "sexual sounds" (i.e., the source of the sounds could be attributed to any of thousands of "innocent explanations"!). Why do you keep saying Dr. Dranov BELIEVED something that he has stated MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW that he DID NOT BELIEVE!

 

[getmyjive11]

It is hindsight.

It's not. We are going to have to disagree there.

 

[lionlurker]

They would not get sued for this, that is absurd. There is a difference between filing a false police report and reporting suspected activity.

You're joking, right? It gets into the news that a guy who at the time is considered an icon is investigated for child sex abuse, and they are wrong, you don't think there will be lawsuits involved?

 

[getmyjive11]

Pefect example right there - you claim the sounds were sexual, what's that based on? MM's attribution of the sounds is CONJECTURING as the legal definition of such EVIDENCE makes clear - it is utter irrelevant and to be ignored (that is the jury instruction for such evidence) if reasonable conclusions could be draw in either direction that suggest guilt or innocence! IOW, there is ZERO reason within the law or the code for Dr. Dranov to come to the SAME CONJECTURED CONCLUSION regarding the sounds as MM did! In fact, the law (and again Dr. Dranov self-admittedly states he had Mandatory Reporting Training and was very familiar with the code) says that it is eminently reasonable to ignore such evidence when it is completely unsupported by any other evidence of any kind as it is not a CREDIBLE CONCLUSION based simply on that stand-alone information and evidence.

So again, do tell how Dr. Dranov knew they were "sexual sounds" because in your post you clearly state he did by saying "the combination of sexual sounds....", because in his testimony, including yesterday and at the SWIGJ, Dr. Dranov has been consistent in saying the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE - he was completely UNCONVINCED that the source of the sounds was "sexual sounds" (i.e., the source of the sounds could be attributed to any of thousands of "innocent explanations"!). Why do you keep saying Dr. Dranov BELIEVED something that he has stated MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW that he DID NOT BELIEVE!

What world do you live in??

"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."

https://onwardstate.com/2016/10/19/...estify-on-day-3-of-mcqueary-penn-state-trial/

 

[AvgUser]

It's not hindsight at all. MM told them about the sexual sounds that night. He told them about Sandusky and a boy in a shower. He was visibly upset. That could see/hear all of that for themselves yet they decided to go tell a football coach about the incident instead of the police. Where the hell is the common sense in that? Why aren't you upset about that?

Why didn't anything happen in 1998 with far more 'evidence'? That did involve police.

 

[getmyjive11]

You're joking, right? It gets into the news that a guy who at the time is considered an icon is investigated for child sex abuse, and they are wrong, you don't think there will be lawsuits involved?

No, there won't. The law protects people who report suspected child abuse.

 

[sluggo72]

Shoot-today's the day to be down there. Harmon and Spanier are both up.

10-1 Harmon doesn't remember very much.

 

[Ceasar]

What about "Mom McQuery " ????

I know she would be a hearsay witness. But one thing I find odd about the whole shower-night incident is that there is no reference to "Mom". All of us married guys -- with kids --- know that nothing ... and I mean NOTHING ... happens with the kids without Mom knowing.

So on the night of the shower incident, Mike sees something and it upsets him. He comes home at 10pm that night and at his house is his Dad and Dr. Dranov (a family friend) .... but not Mom ??? But then Mike proceeds to tell his Dad and Dr. Dranov what he sees. Maybe Mom was not home till later that night?? But per Mike's story he was very emotionally upset. The next day does Mike see Mom??? Because if he was so emotionally upset the night before, obviously he would have some emotional carry over the next day. And Mom does not hear about it? Mom does not sense it? Mom does not get told about it?? I don't know about you guys, but if something really bad happened to one of my kids, and I kept it from my wife, when she eventually found out there would be total hell to pay.

I guess what I am asking is that thru this timeline how did Mike explain what he saw to his Mom? How did Dad explain to his wife what their son saw? Are we to believe that Mom was kept totally clueless about this for 10+ years ?????

That is a great point Kiber and one I had never thought of.

 

[bjf1991]

He can still molest a boy with his swim trunks on. It's the police's job to determine if anything nefarious occurred; let them do their job.

LMAO

Flew right over GMJ's head (shocking! )

 

[getmyjive11]

Why didn't anything happen in 1998 with far more 'evidence'? That did involve police.

It was reported and investigated. If the police screw up, there is not much you can do. However, no investigation can take place unless it is reported.

 

[Talpsu]

out of curiosity, has anyone ever asked Mr. McQ or Dranov if MM was drunk that night?

 

[Howie'81]

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".

Meh, torch the school anyhow.

 

[Howie'81]

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

^^^^THIS^^^^

Justice was an orphan in this case.

 

[mn78psu83]

Isn't that ... blackmail?

Beats me. See the post earlier in the thread concerning the Affiliation Agreement.

 

[AvgUser]

It was reported and investigated. If the police screw up, there is not much you can do. However, no investigation can take place unless it is reported.

I initially reacted to and commented about a statement you made in which you implied the only thing that should have been done was to call police. As others have said, isn;t hindsight great?

Is it not reasonable for take the results of 1998 (creepy, but no crime) and come to a conclusion that nothing needed to be reported in 2001? Given what people were likely told (i.e., crazy Jerry in the shower again?), i think it is also reasonable to not immediately alert any authorities until you understand the true nature of the situation. Human Beings make "common sense judgements" like that ever single day.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

It's not hindsight at all. MM told them about the sexual sounds that night. He told them about Sandusky and a boy in a shower. He was visibly upset. That could see/hear all of that for themselves yet they decided to go tell a football coach about the incident instead of the police. Where the hell is the common sense in that? Why aren't you upset about that?

MM telling them his conjecture regarding "sounds" he heard is MEANINGLESS in regards to the conclusion that Dranov attributed to the information!!! Essentially, MM is telling Dranov he factually heard "noises" or "sounds" or whatever word you wish to use - Dr. Dranov ACKNOWLEDGED that he understood this fact (i.e., that MM hear "noises" when he walked into Lasch). MM conjecture and attribution of the noises to "sexual activity" is MEANINGLESS to the weight and credibility Dr. Dranov would place on such INFORMATION and EVIDENCE, especially when it turned out to be the SOLE PIECE of evidence MM provided despite talking to him extensively on the topic. Dr. Dranov has said repeatedly that he didn't find that single piece of evidence, which was 100% conjecture, to be persuasive or rise to the level of credibility to require a "Reportable Incident" under the code, which is an eminently REASONABLE conclusion according to the LAW and rules of EVIDENCE! So what, MM says he thinks noises he heard briefly while entering the building from a great distance were being generated by sexual activity, but offers not a shred of additional information and evidence to support this conclusion despite Dr. Dranov and his Dad spending hours attempting to pry it out of him - who cares if MM conjectured they were coming from sexual activity when they could have come from literally thousands of other "innocent explanations"!?!? MM's "conjecturing" on sounds is largely IRRELEVANT because the explanation as to the actual source of the sounds just as likely has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!

 

[Howie'81]

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?

Because our own BOT, a bunch of perfidious politicians, and the NCAA are a bunch of shits. There's the simple and complete answer.

 

[getmyjive11]

MM telling them his conjecture regarding "sounds" he heard is MEANINGLESS in regards to the conclusion that Dranov attributed to the information!!! Essentially, MM is telling Dranov he factually heard "noises" or "sounds" or whatever word you wish to use - Dr. Dranov ACKNOWLEDGED that he understood this fact (i.e., that MM hear "noises" when he walked into Lasch). MM conjecture and attribution of the noises to "sexual activity" is MEANINGLESS to the weight and credibility Dr. Dranov would place on such INFORMATION and EVIDENCE, especially when it turned out to be the SOLE PIECE of evidence MM provided despite talking to him extensively on the topic. Dr. Dranov has said repeatedly that he didn't find that single piece of evidence, which was 100% conjecture, to rise to the level of credibility to require a "Reportable Incident" under the code, which is an eminently REASONABLE conclusion according to the LAW and rules of EVIDENCE! So what, MM says he thinks noises he heard briefly while entering the building from a great distance were being generated by sexual activity, but offers not a shred of additional information and evidence to support this conclusion despite Dr. Dranov and his Dad spending hours attempting to pry it out of him - who cares if MM conjectured they were coming from sexual activity when they could have come from literally thousands of other "innocent explanations"!?!? MM's "conjecturing" on sounds is largely IRRELEVANT because the explanation as to the actual source of the sounds just as likely has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!

It's not meaningless, its an important piece to the puzzle. And it is not Dranov who should be determining is anything sexual occurred, it should be the police. I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong on this.

 

[getmyjive11]

I initially reacted to and commented about a statement you made in which you implied the only thing that should have been done was to call police. As others have said, isn;t hindsight great?

Is it not reasonable for take the results of 1998 (creepy, but no crime) and come to a conclusion that nothing needed to be reported in 2001? Given what people were likely told (i.e., crazy Jerry in the shower again?), i think it is also reasonable to not immediately alert any authorities until you understand the true nature of the situation. Human Beings make "common sense judgements" like that ever single day.

I'm talking specifically about Dranov. How would he know about 1998?

 

[nits74]

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

I'm talking specifically about Dranov. How would he know about 1998?

Well according to the media, everyone associated with Penn State as well as in State College knew about 1998.