Erickson Note: McQueary "more vivid...ten years later"

[rmb297]

Ray did Jerry Sandusky commit a crime the night mike witnessed?

Was psu the employer of a now convicted pedofile for thirty years? Is it likely that this behavior started in 98?

Ray would you agree that you have not seen all the potential evidence relating to 01? Ray would you agree that mike is under oath stating he believes he witness the sexual abuse of a child while the others are stating that simply isn't the case?

All I am pointing out is everyone talks of drawing conclusions from partial evidence or circumstantial evidence ... Is mike not entitled as a witness to at least say concideration? I wonder if he treatment of mike by psu and some of the members of the psu fan base has made other possible witnesses willing to come forward. After all Ray you are about protecting children... Have you and others in fact made it much harder for a witness to come forward?

Glad the we are pen state applies to only select graduates

Dukie,
Yes, Jerry committed crimes on February 9, 2001. Based on his course of conduct with other minor males, he was using the PSU shower as a grooming tool, as such, three crimes were committed.

Jerry was not convicted of pedophilia. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder and is determined by a diagnosis, not a court ruling. PSU was the employer of a child molester for over 30 years. Sandusky's behavior started before 1998, that is confirmed by the evidence on the record. Other allegations against Sandusky date back to when he was in his twenties. Evidence also indicates his sexual disorder dated back to at least 1967.

Obviously, not being a part of the OAG's investigative team or having no access to discovery, I have not seen all the evidence relating to 2001. Based on all the evidence to date, Mike is on an "island." He's had his say in court -- and he's had the AG publicize that he was "extremely credible."

As for my treatment of Mike, I believe I've been very fair. In fact, I didn't go public with Mike's gambling issue and I knew about it long before Van Natta did. I got the same information about his sexting before Van Natta did...and I didn't go public. I've simply looked at Mike's own inconsistent testimony and concluded he was inconsistent and exaggerated what he saw in 2001.

I've never stated there is "no victim" in 2001 nor have I ever said what happened wasn't a crime. I have questioned parts of victim's testimony based no Sandusky's modus operandi and how it fits with the testimony of other victims. Some of it is credible, some of it isn't. The jury decided the same way because they found Sandusky not guilty on three counts.

I don't think anything I've done has stood in the way of the victims coming forward. In fact it is the opposite. Some of the victims have reached out to me -- and families of other victims of child abuse have done so as well.

I don't have a personal issue with Mike and haven't said anything to indicate he should not be associated with PSU. I simply believe Mike may have remembered things differently in 2010 than he did in 2001. Maybe he was influenced -- maybe not.

Hope all is well with you. See you soon.

 

[bjf1984]

Ray did Jerry Sandusky commit a crime the night mike witnessed?

Was psu the employer of a now convicted pedofile for thirty years? Is it likely that this behavior started in 98?

Ray would you agree that you have not seen all the potential evidence relating to 01? Ray would you agree that mike is under oath stating he believes he witness the sexual abuse of a child while the others are stating that simply isn't the case?

All I am pointing out is everyone talks of drawing conclusions from partial evidence or circumstantial evidence ... Is mike not entitled as a witness to at least say concideration? I wonder if he treatment of mike by psu and some of the members of the psu fan base has made other possible witnesses willing to come forward. After all Ray you are about protecting children... Have you and others in fact made it much harder for a witness to come forward?

Glad the we are pen state applies to only select graduates

I think - and I posted a bit of a manifesto on this a few days back - the crux of the consternation rests on the fact that for 4 years we are still awaiting a trial.

I know that oftentimes, the closer we get to a situation, the more distorted the lens becomes that we view those situations through.

I don't think MOST people (at least I hope not) are saying anyone is "lying".

I think we are in this situation in large part because:

- these few scraps are ALL we have to go on
and
- that the actions taken by all of the parties involved at the time...MM, TC, GS, JVP, etc...are in so MANY ways incongruent with the available statements (from MM, TC, GS and others) with regard to the conversations of 2001.

That - I think - is very clear.

What that DOES NOT MEAN - IMHO - and again, I posted a manifesto regarding that a few days ago, is that anyone is "lying" in the typical sense. Could one or more folks be outright "lying"? Maybe. I have no way of knowing that for sure.
But I would not be surprised at all, knowing how these situations are processed by human minds, if ALL of the parties involved could be given a legitimate lie-detector test, and NONE of them would be determined to be "intentionally misleading".......despite the obvious incongruencies.
That is - I know - a difficult item for many to process.

To me, the outfit that is most deserving of being vilified based on all of the available information (albeit, likely incomplete) - is CLEARLY the band of scumbags permeating the OAG and the Investigators group.
The one thing I wish I could change - that would benefit everyone (I think) - would be to distance MM from the actions of the OAG/Prosecutors. Folks who - IMHO - largely created the mess we find ourselves in.



,

 

[Bushwood CC]

One problem with this theory - numerous investigations in both the US and UK, including by the two most respected scientific organizations in the world (the AAAS and British Royal Society) have concluded that there was no fraud or falsified research by Mann, and his research has been independently replicated and confirmed by at least 13 other groups of researchers from around the globe.

Complete BS - Mann's "Hockey Stick" anthropomorphic global warming chart labeled as having near perfect "statistical correlation and tested ex-ante predictive power" has been COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY discredited by the best Math and Statistical experts on the planet! It has been proven that this chart which has proven WILDLY INACCURATE and to have zero authentic statistical predictability was the product of intentional data-mining and cherry-picking...and was therefore intentional fraud to keep the research grant funds gravy-train rolling. And the experts in the ABSOLUTE & HARD SCIENCE of Mathematics undeniably discredited the research regardless of what the excuse making, rationalizing psycho-babble "climate change" soft-SCIENCE idiots spouted.

 

[WeR0206]

Do you have a copy of Dranov's actual Grand Jury testimony? If you do, could you please link it for us? That's the testimony that would have been relevant in January 2012.

Interestingly enough, during the 12/16/11 prelim, on page 68 Roberto asks MM point blank what he told Dr. D that night and the state immediately objected due to irrelevance. Of course, the objection was sustained (how in the eff is that NOT relevant???). Page 69, Roberto states that she wants to hear what MM told Dr. D to see if it corroborates what MM told TC and that there has to be a 2nd witness to corroborate MM's statements. The judge doesn't agree and the objection is sustained. Ummm...this is perjury we're talking about here...smh.

Roberto then goes on the record at the bottom of page 69 and states:

"For the record note my objection, and for the record, I mean, I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony".

I agree with Roberto 100% on this. Another reason why I can't wait for the trials. You know damned well that Dr. D is going to be one of the first people the defense calls to testify.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

So Ray. If I understand these notes right, in January 2012 (I believe that is the date of those notes), Erickson is claiming that the "Detectives" agree with C/S/S that McQueary's description of the shower incident was "more vivid" "10 years later" than it was in 2002 (2001)??

And this is coming straight from Fina and OAG??? If that's what Fina actually relayed to Erickson, this case is closed.

Reading this thread today, I was reminded of how I first learned the word "scumbag." It was from the book "Serpico."

In that book, scumbags were a cop or cops that other cops did not like for one reason or another.....in Serpico's case, because of whistle-blowing.

Ray did Jerry Sandusky commit a crime the night mike witnessed?

Was psu the employer of a now convicted pedofile for thirty years? Is it likely that this behavior started in 98?

Ray would you agree that you have not seen all the potential evidence relating to 01? Ray would you agree that mike is under oath stating he believes he witness the sexual abuse of a child while the others are stating that simply isn't the case?

All I am pointing out is everyone talks of drawing conclusions from partial evidence or circumstantial evidence ... Is mike not entitled as a witness to at least say concideration? I wonder if he treatment of mike by psu and some of the members of the psu fan base has made other possible witnesses willing to come forward. After all Ray you are about protecting children... Have you and others in fact made it much harder for a witness to come forward?

Glad the we are pen state applies to only select graduates

I figure it is going to get worse for Mike before it gets better.

I don't personally plan on anything that would make it worse, and it would be nice if others followed suit. Just sayin'.

 

[CDW3333]

Dukie you're certainly entitled to your beliefs and so am I. I too am eagerly awaiting the trials so we can get everything out there once and for all. I can't wait for MM and JM to get cross examined by Roberto and Farrell. It should be very interesting if the trials ever do happen.

I'm not rushing to judgement re: MM. I've spent the last few years studying his testimony, JM's testimony, etc. (particularly the 12/16/11 prelim) and comparing it to people's actions in 2001 and they simply do not line up. Your own dad said the following at the 12/16/11 prelim (you know, that prelim he couldn't remember testifying at a mere 6 months later during the JS trial?):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM):

Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?

A: I never used the word crime, I made it, I'm sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature

Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?

A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You tell me, after reading the above testimony, does it sound like MM told JM that he was certain a kid was getting abused (notice all of the "I think" and "led me to believe" in his testimony)?? Since when is certain abuse or a severe sexual act with a kid "at least a very inappropriate action"? There'd be no at least, at best gradient. Being certain that child abuse occurred would be a VERY criminal action...no room for grey area.




Where did I even mention Dr. D asking MM three times if he saw anything sexual? The main part of Dr. D.'s testimony that I was referencing (which Erickson's notes seem to corroborate) was the part where MM heard sounds but couldn't see past the shower wall. Then MM saw a kid peek his head around the corner and a hand pull him back into the shower. Moments later MM saw JS and a kid walking out of the shower with towels on (this is the cliff notes of Dr. D's recollection). That lines up exactly with Erickson's notes and the diagram and isn't even CLOSE to the 2010 versions of MM's story.

Please don't give me that "MM was too incoherent to properly answer a question" bullshit. Was he too incoherent the next day or the day after, etc...? In order to believe that you'd have to believe that MM was so incoherent that for the rest of his life he was never able to communicate to JM or Dr. D exactly what he saw that night or thought was happening but of course he wasn't too incoherent to tell C/S (people he hardly knew compared to his dad and Dr. D). That is simply NOT believable to me. I find it hard to believe that at no point in time did JM or Dr. D ever come to MM and ask him "hey what was it that made you so upset that night when you couldn't properly tell us at the time"?

There's also this little bit of testimony from the 12/16/11 prelim which doesn't line up with your contention that when Dr. D. came over MM was too incoherent to tell him what he thought was happening:

Page 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened BEFORE Dr. D even came over. They (MM and JM) considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was "perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act".

First of all that testimony doesn't make any sense. Since when is someone confident they saw a severe sexual act between an adult and a kid decide to NOT call the police and instead tell a football coach?? Secondly what this tells us, according to MM's testimony, is that before Dr. D even came over MM told JM that he saw a severe sexual act. If MM was too distraught to communicate that to Dr. D why didn't JM just tell him instead? Was JM also too incoherent??? I don't think so.

I also find it very hard to believe that JM was told by MM that he thought JS was abusing a kid and neither JM nor MM asked TC/Schultz (in their respective follow up conversations with them) or ANYONE at UPPD why UPPD never came to at least get a written statement from MM which would be required if they actually wanted UPPD to do something about JS.

MM didn't call the police right away because a. he was concerned about the ramifications for his career; and b. he was concerned about the ramifications for Penn State.

I would guess 2/3 the former and 1/3 the latter.

Anybody who isn't a blind partisan can see this.

Yeah, if MM had seen Jerry the Janitor abusing the kid he would've reported it to the police immediately.

Of course, if Jerry Sandusky was Jerry the Janitor, he would've been in jail long before this.

A lot of people probably looked the other way when it came to Sandusky. Picking on the guy at the bottom of the food chain seems pretty unfair.

Also, let's not forget the words of Joe Paterno, "I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me."

BTW, Ray, you seem to have information regarding an incident that pre-dates 1998. What's that all about?

 

[rmb297]

I think - and I posted a bit of a manifesto on this a few days back - the crux of the consternation rests on the fact that for 4 years we are still awaiting a trial.

I know that oftentimes, the closer we get to a situation, the more distorted the lens becomes that we view those situations through.

I don't think MOST people (at least I hope not) are saying anyone is "lying".

I think we are in this situation in large part because:

- these few scraps are ALL we have to go on
and
- that the actions taken by all of the parties involved at the time...MM, TC, GS, JVP, etc...are in so MANY ways incongruent with the available statements (from MM, TC, GS and others) with regard to the conversations of 2001.

That - I think - is very clear.

What that DOES NOT MEAN - IMHO - and again, I posted a manifesto regarding that a few days ago, is that anyone is "lying" in the typical sense. Could one or more folks be outright "lying"? Maybe. I have no way of knowing that for sure.
But I would not be surprised at all, knowing how these situations are processed by human minds, if ALL of the parties involved could be given a legitimate lie-detector test, and NONE of them would be determined to be "intentionally misleading".......despite the obvious incongruencies.
That is - I know - a difficult item for many to process.

To me, the outfit that is most deserving of being vilified based on all of the available information (albeit, likely incomplete) - is CLEARLY the band of scumbags permeating the OAG and the Investigators group.
The one thing I wish I could change - that would benefit everyone (I think) - would be to distance MM from the actions of the OAG/Prosecutors. Folks who - IMHO - largely created the mess we find ourselves in.



,

I'll FOOTSTOMP Barry's position here.

The issue at hand in Fina's and the OAG's abuse of the justice system. I

Fina had no one to corroborate Mike's version to Gary and Tim and he knew damn well that he couldn't prosecute a perjury charge.

Fina also knew the date of the incident put it outside the statute of limitations to prosecute, but went with a date that was knowingly false in order to charge.

There's more evidence of Fina's wrongdoing that will come out soon.

Let's put the focus where it belongs -- on PA's corrupt criminal justice and court system.

 

[Ceasar]

Nobody has ever testified that MM was asked by Dranov three times if he saw anything sexual and three times he denied it.

The testimony from all involved is that Dranov asked him three times if he saw anything sexual and each time MM was so upset he was incoherent.

Seeing horseplay in the shower will do that to a fella.

The account that MM denied three times to Dranov that he saw anything sexual was spread around by Amendola in early 2012 when he was trying to pollute the jury pool.

The fact that false account appears in "Erickson's notes" and was allegedly communicated by somebody from thr OAG's office makes these documents highly suspect (in addition to being unauthenticated, multi-level hearsay, etc).

CDW - I am almost certain that Sara Gamin reported, in the Patriot-News, the "allegation that Dr. Dranov asked MM three times if he saw anything sexual and each time MM responded "no". I don't recall how the specific testimony squares with the Gamin report but I think it is relatively consistent.

 

[CDW3333]

Dr. Dranov recalled what McQueary had said to him that night. “He had gone into the Penn State football locker room. When he came in, he described to me what he heard as sexual sounds,” Dranov said. “I asked, ‘Mike what do you mean?'”

“He couldn’t go on. He just seemed to get more upset,” Dranov said. “He turned and looked toward the shower and made eye contact with a young boy.”

Dranov testified that he asked McQueary if the boy seemed startled or frightened. McQueary said no.

“An arm reached out and pulled the boy back,” Dranov said McQueary told him. “I can’t remember what he said next, but he looked into the shower, and a man came out. It was Jerry Sandusky.”

“It was clear in Mike’s mind that this was an incident that had to be reported. He knew that he had to report it. I encouraged him to report it to his supervisor that was Joe Paterno,” Dranov said.

“Did he describe any particular sex act?” Karl Rominger asked Dranov.

“No he did not.”

“Did he give me any kind of graphic description?” Rominger continued.

“No. His voice was trembling His hands were trembling, he was visibly shaken,” Dranov said.

“I kept asking him ‘What did you see?’ and he kept going back to the sounds. He would get upset when I asked him specifically what he had seen,” Dranov concluded.

 

[CDW3333]

CDW - I am almost certain that Sara Gamin reported, in the Patriot-News, the "allegation that Dr. Dranov asked MM three times if he saw anything sexual and each time MM responded "no". I don't recall how the specific testimony squares with the Gamin report but I think it is relatively consistent.

That came from Amendola. I think that's pretty well established-it's one reason why the judge put a gag order in place.

 

[masterbaker65]

One question. Why did MM lie?

 

[sluggo72]

thanks just trying to figure out a connection.

What's that tell you sluggo???[/QUOTE]
what it tells me is, Greggy's name should not have been brought up. what I think is, I am just guessing, MM probably told this story to someone else back at that time. And that someone else probably was not a full time coach, but someone more on MM level, like another GA, especially if it was the big deal he testified to. I have a hard time believing he only told, JVP, TC, & GS, I think he would have said something to one of his buddies/teammates/GA's etc just to get it off his chest. and I would like to hear what they had to say. Just my thoughts.

 

[mdahmus]

CDW - I am almost certain that Sara Gamin reported, in the Patriot-News, the "allegation that Dr. Dranov asked MM three times if he saw anything sexual and each time MM responded "no". I don't recall how the specific testimony squares with the Gamin report but I think it is relatively consistent.

The GJ testimony was never confirmed officially. The only testimony we have access to that is reliable is the actual trial testimony, in which Dranov characterized McQueary as too upset to respond when asked that question.

This repeated unverified claim (that MM 'responded "no"' three times) is widespread among the truthers, and is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[WeR0206]

MM didn't call the police right away because a. he was concerned about the ramifications for his career; and b. he was concerned about the ramifications for Penn State.

I would guess 2/3 the former and 1/3 the latter.

Anybody who isn't a blind partisan can see this.

Yeah, if MM had seen Jerry the Janitor abusing the kid he would've reported it to the police immediately.

Of course, if Jerry Sandusky was Jerry the Janitor, he would've been in jail long before this.

A lot of people probably looked the other way when it came to Sandusky. Picking on the guy at the bottom of the food chain seems pretty unfair.

Also, let's not forget the words of Joe Paterno, "I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me."

BTW, Ray, you seem to have information regarding an incident that pre-dates 1998. What's that all about?

So you're saying that MM was more concerned about his career than the well being of a kid he was certain was getting raped?? I'm sorry but I'm not willing to make that jump. I think it's much easier to believe (which lines up with everyone's actions at the time) that in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was rightfully weirded out/uncomfortable with it and felt someone at PSU should know about it...... versus MM, JM, Dr. D, CSS, and Joe all being terrible people more concerned with not rocking the boat instead of the well being of that kid.

Joe's statement to Mike lines up with my contention perfectly. Since MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing, except an inappropriate late night shower, MM did the right thing by coming to Joe. Do you really think Joe would have told MM that he did the right thing by coming to him first if he was certain a kid was getting raped??? Please..Joe would have said what the heck are you telling me for, you need to go to the police! My contention is also backed up my Joe's written statement that was released shortly after the GJP went public. In his statement Joe said that at no time was he told of the sex acts mentioned in the GJP, only an inappropriate shower that made a GA upset.

If MM really was that concerned about his job, why not just make an anonymous call to UPPD or ChildLine (the childline option certainly would have been known to Dr. D and JM due to them working in the medical field)???

Why, when TC followed up with MM a few weeks later, did MM NEVER say that MORE needed to be done (besides confronting JS about his showering behavior, taking away his guest privileges, and informing TSM of PSU's new directives and the incident) if he was so certain a kid was getting abused?

I've yet to hear one plausible answer to my above questions. I'm all ears.

 

[Maddog]

Complete BS - Mann's "Hockey Stick" anthropomorphic global warming chart labeled as having near perfect "statistical correlation and tested ex-ante predictive power" has been COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY discredited by the best Math and Statistical experts on the planet! It has been proven that this chart which has proven WILDLY INACCURATE and to have zero authentic statistical predictability was the product of intentional data-mining and cherry-picking...and was therefore intentional fraud to keep the research grant funds gravy-train rolling. And the experts in the ABSOLUTE & HARD SCIENCE of Mathematics undeniably discredited the research regardless of what the excuse making, rationalizing psycho-babble "climate change" soft-SCIENCE idiots spouted.

Link? I do know a little about hard science, as I have been a research chemist for over 35 years.

Oh, and there's no need to SHOUT!

 

[rmb297]

MM didn't call the police right away because a. he was concerned about the ramifications for his career; and b. he was concerned about the ramifications for Penn State.

I would guess 2/3 the former and 1/3 the latter.

Anybody who isn't a blind partisan can see this.

Yeah, if MM had seen Jerry the Janitor abusing the kid he would've reported it to the police immediately.

Of course, if Jerry Sandusky was Jerry the Janitor, he would've been in jail long before this.

A lot of people probably looked the other way when it came to Sandusky. Picking on the guy at the bottom of the food chain seems pretty unfair.

Also, let's not forget the words of Joe Paterno, "I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me."

BTW, Ray, you seem to have information regarding an incident that pre-dates 1998. What's that all about?

Pre-1998 crimes were prosecuted at the Sandusky trial. Victim 4, 7 and Victim 10 all testified to abuse prior to 1998. Travis Weaver came forward to state he was abused in 1994-1995. Matt Sandusky put his abuse around the same time frame as Weaver, IIRC. Others have come forward to report crimes in the late 80s and there is a report of Sandusky abusing an individual while in his twenties (in Washington PA).
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012...sky-sexually-assaulted-him-over-40-years-ago/


Let's not speculate on motivation and stick to the evidence. So a witness states something and five people who he talked to don't corroborate his story. As an attorney, you're not going to prosecute the case. Nifong dropped the rape charge once he realized Mangum's account was rebutted by the other stripper.

There is no evidence that a lot of people looked the other way (at PSU). The accounts of the janitors are hearsay and Petrosky's account isn't even corroborated by the other janitor, Witherite.

As for Paterno, it is a similar abuse of justice to cherry pick the one thing Paterno said as accurate while ignoring that he got EVERYTHING else about the incident wrong. In his police interview, he did not recall meeting with Curley and Schultz, didn't recall them coming to his house, said he made a phone call to Curley and then left it alone. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/11/governor-corbett-doth-protests-too-much.html

There is a reason why there are statutes of limitations on crimes and in this case is being tried on memories of a fleeting event that happened 10 years prior.

 

[JoeBatters1]

The GJ testimony was never confirmed officially. The only testimony we have access to that is reliable is the actual trial testimony, in which Dranov characterized McQueary as too upset to respond when asked that question.

This repeated unverified claim (that MM 'responded "no"' three times) is widespread among the truthers, and is fundamentally dishonest.

As I understand it the GJ testimony of Dranov has not been made public so we don't know if there is a variance between what he said at the JS trial and what he may have has said to the GJ. According to the Ganim article there is a discrepancy. I don't think anyone is being fundamentally dishonest here. It is easy for people to conflate the Ganim article and the testimony of Dranov at the JS trial given how many years have passed from those events and the amount of information/opinion generated on the message boards and around the whole Sandusky saga in general.

 

[mn78psu83]

Link? I do know a little about hard science, as I have been a research chemist for over 35 years.

Oh, and there's no need to SHOUT!

Beware. Bushwood is louder than The Who in their prime. Also, don't feel bad. He would have shouted at and claimed superiority over Linus Pauling too.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

I have no idea why Schiano's name was brought up earlier, but it reminded me about an article I read a long time ago.

When asked straight up whether or not he knew what Jerry was up to, he gave what I would call a non-answer. Like he was dodging the question. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I don't know. Anyway, you all can decide for yourselves:

You worked for six years under Jerry Sandusky. Did you have any inkling of what was going on?

Schiano: Because of the situation being what it is, I'm not even going to get into it. I'm so far removed. Again, you don't need people making commentaries on things like this. It's just a sad thing.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/11/joe_paterno_retirement_saddens.html

 

[nits74]

Reading this thread today, I was reminded of how I first learned the word "scumbag." It was from the book "Serpico."

In that book, scumbags were a cop or cops that other cops did not like for one reason or another.....in Serpico's case, because of whistle-blowing.


I figure it is going to get worse for Mike before it gets better.

I don't personally plan on anything that would make it worse, and it would be nice if others followed suit. Just sayin'.

TTM, care to elaborate on this? A little cryptic.

 

[psuro]

Not to change the subject, but isn't it interesting that the notes say McQueary was found via the chat rooms -- and not the anonymous email tip.

Didn't someone on TOS say they were visited by the cops shortly after chatting with Dukie and Yoda.

I knew the person who was visited and he was scared sh*tless when it happened. Have not spoken to him in a quite a while, and not sure where he is, but.....there is a connection between him and CR66.

 

[mn78psu83]

I knew the person who was visited and he was scared sh*tless when it happened. Have not spoken to him in a quite a while, and not sure where he is, but.....there is a connection between him and CR66.

Impressive pedigree?

 

[CDW3333]

Pre-1998 crimes were prosecuted at the Sandusky trial. Victim 4, 7 and Victim 10 all testified to abuse prior to 1998. Travis Weaver came forward to state he was abused in 1994-1995. Matt Sandusky put his abuse around the same time frame as Weaver, IIRC. Others have come forward to report crimes in the late 80s and there is a report of Sandusky abusing an individual while in his twenties (in Washington PA).
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012...sky-sexually-assaulted-him-over-40-years-ago/


Let's not speculate on motivation and stick to the evidence. So a witness states something and five people who he talked to don't corroborate his story. As an attorney, you're not going to prosecute the case. Nifong dropped the rape charge once he realized Mangum's account was rebutted by the other stripper.

There is no evidence that a lot of people looked the other way (at PSU). The accounts of the janitors are hearsay and Petrosky's account isn't even corroborated by the other janitor, Witherite.

As for Paterno, it is a similar abuse of justice to cherry pick the one thing Paterno said as accurate while ignoring that he got EVERYTHING else about the incident wrong. In his police interview, he did not recall meeting with Curley and Schultz, didn't recall them coming to his house, said he made a phone call to Curley and then left it alone. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/11/governor-corbett-doth-protests-too-much.html

There is a reason why there are statutes of limitations on crimes and in this case is being tried on memories of a fleeting event that happened 10 years prior.

I'm sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant pre-98 incidents that occurred at Penn State.

And, I know, the biggest problem the JoeBots have at this point is, ironically, the testimony of Joe Paterno.

 

[JmmyW]

The GJ testimony was never confirmed officially. The only testimony we have access to that is reliable is the actual trial testimony, in which Dranov characterized McQueary as too upset to respond when asked that question.

This repeated unverified claim (that MM 'responded "no"' three times) is widespread among the truthers, and is fundamentally dishonest.

The unverified claim about responding "no" three times came from a Ganim article 12/11/2011 ("according to a source")
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

And you're right, we don't have access to Dranov's GJ testimony. He did testify later at trial. At that point, he did say Mike was upset; however, he did not say he was too upset to respond. He said that Mike responded by coming back to the sounds.

Hope this clarifies it. But if not, this following is directly from Dranov's testimony in the 6/20/2012 transcript of the Sandusky trial, page 15-16:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. ROMINGER:

Q. But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR. McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. ROMINGER:

Q. Right?

A. In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying but what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.

Q. You're a mandatory reporter?

A. Yes.

Q. Nothing further.

MR. McGETTIGAN: I have nothing further.

Thank you, doctor.

THE COURT: Thank you, doctor. You can step down.

 

[Misder2]

I knew the person who was visited and he was scared sh*tless when it happened. Have not spoken to him in a quite a while, and not sure where he is, but.....there is a connection between him and CR66.

TOS?

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Clearly, CR66 doesn't understand:
1) The PA child abuse reporting law -- that didn't apply to ANYONE who was charged.
Really now? So tell me, who did it apply to?
2) How a grand jury really works.
OK then explain this to me: "The GRAND JURY that recommended more than four dozen sexual abuse charges against Sandusky late last year concluded that Curley and Schultz were not truthful when they recounted assistant coach Mike McQueary's report of the incident." Not Fina, the GRAND JURY.

http://articles.mcall.com/keyword/perjury/recent/2

 

[Misder2]

raykovitz?

 

[bjf1984]

I'm sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant pre-98 incidents that occurred at Penn State.

And, I know, the biggest problem the JoeBots have at this point is, ironically, the testimony of Joe Paterno.

 

[bjf1984]

 

[Ceasar]

Dr. Dranov recalled what McQueary had said to him that night. “He had gone into the Penn State football locker room. When he came in, he described to me what he heard as sexual sounds,” Dranov said. “I asked, ‘Mike what do you mean?'”

“He couldn’t go on. He just seemed to get more upset,” Dranov said. “He turned and looked toward the shower and made eye contact with a young boy.”

Dranov testified that he asked McQueary if the boy seemed startled or frightened. McQueary said no.

“An arm reached out and pulled the boy back,” Dranov said McQueary told him. “I can’t remember what he said next, but he looked into the shower, and a man came out. It was Jerry Sandusky.”

“It was clear in Mike’s mind that this was an incident that had to be reported. He knew that he had to report it. I encouraged him to report it to his supervisor that was Joe Paterno,” Dranov said.

“Did he describe any particular sex act?” Karl Rominger asked Dranov.

“No he did not.”

“Did he give me any kind of graphic description?” Rominger continued.

“No. His voice was trembling His hands were trembling, he was visibly shaken,” Dranov said.

“I kept asking him ‘What did you see?’ and he kept going back to the sounds. He would get upset when I asked him specifically what he had seen,” Dranov concluded.

Sorry I cannot link it but I just googled it quickly. In an article date December 11, 2011 Sara Ganim wrote that a source told her that "Dranov told grand jurors that three times he asked McQueary if he saw anything sexual and each time McQueary said no." Ganim went on to write that this testimony of Dranov contradicted what the GJ summary stated that MM saw and differed from a hand written note that MM provided to investigators.
Think this just illustrates the problems with MM's testimony. Obviously Dranov's testimony is going to be used forcefully at any trial by the defense. Now, if Ganim is wrong, a transcript of the GJ testimony will resolve that pretty quickly.

 

[WeR0206]

The unverified claim about responding "no" three times came from a Ganim article 12/11/2011 ("according to a source")
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

And you're right, we don't have access to Dranov's GJ testimony. He did testify later at trial. At that point, he did say Mike was upset; however, he did not say he was too upset to respond. He said that Mike responded by coming back to the sounds.

Hope this clarifies it. But if not, this following is directly from Dranov's testimony in the 6/20/2012 transcript of the Sandusky trial, page 15-16:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. ROMINGER:

Q. But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR. McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. ROMINGER:

Q. Right?

A. In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying but what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.

Q. You're a mandatory reporter?

A. Yes.

Q. Nothing further.

MR. McGETTIGAN: I have nothing further.

Thank you, doctor.

THE COURT: Thank you, doctor. You can step down.

Thank you JimmyW for posting. This testimony lines up EXACTLY with everyone else's (except for MM of course) that in 2001 MM didn't see any sex acts/molestation occurring (which is what any listener to MM's story would want to know--what did you actually see...not what do you think was happening but what did you actually see), only an inappropriate late night shower/horseplay that made a PSU GA uncomfortable. That's what Dr. D testified to, CSS testified to, it's what Joe testified to, it's what JR testified to, and to an extent it's what JM testified to.

 

[mn78psu83]

Sorry I cannot link it but I just googled it quickly. In an article date December 11, 2011 Sara Ganim wrote that a source told her that "Dranov told grand jurors that three times he asked McQueary if he saw anything sexual and each time McQueary said no." Ganim went on to write that this testimony of Dranov contradicted what the GJ summary stated that MM saw and differed from a hand written note that MM provided to investigators.
Think this just illustrates the problems with MM's testimony. Obviously Dranov's testimony is going to be used forcefully at any trial by the defense. Now, if Ganim is wrong, a transcript of the GJ testimony will resolve that pretty quickly.

LINK: New version of McQueary story emerges

This thread is becoming bizarre for me. At one time or another we've discussed all of these things in the past here. Some of them many times. The linked article generated a lot of discussion at the time.

 

[marshall23]

The Grand Jury that found MM "credible" and indicted Gary and Tim......never heard or saw them testify.

 

[psuro]

TOS?

Golf related.

 

[ApexLion]

I'm sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant pre-98 incidents that occurred at Penn State.

And, I know, the biggest problem the JoeBots have at this point is, ironically, the testimony of Joe Paterno.

What is with the JoeBots comments? That is a term made up by a goober sports reporter that can't get laid, looks like a freak and is in a dead end job.

Most of us on here are alumni that want the truth. I have no idea what you are.

 

[robbrunskill]

Reading this thread today, I was reminded of how I first learned the word "scumbag." It was from the book "Serpico."

In that book, scumbags were a cop or cops that other cops did not like for one reason or another.....in Serpico's case, because of whistle-blowing.


I figure it is going to get worse for Mike before it gets better.

I don't personally plan on anything that would make it worse, and it would be nice if others followed suit. Just sayin'.

the first time I saw that "word" in print was in a satirical National Lampoon article about a porn director named Vincent Scumbaggi.

 

[CDW3333]

QUOTE="Ceasar, post: 419451, member: 274"]Sorry I cannot link it but I just googled it quickly. In an article date December 11, 2011 Sara Ganim wrote that a source told her that "Dranov told grand jurors that three times he asked McQueary if he saw anything sexual and each time McQueary said no." Ganim went on to write that this testimony of Dranov contradicted what the GJ summary stated that MM saw and differed from a hand written note that MM provided to investigators.
Think this just illustrates the problems with MM's testimony. Obviously Dranov's testimony is going to be used forcefully at any trial by the defense. Now, if Ganim is wrong, a transcript of the GJ testimony will resolve that pretty quickly.[/QUOTE]

I believe Rominger and Amendola had Dranov's GJ testimony at the Sandusky trial.

 

[psudukie]

Ray I am curious how soon do you think you heard of anything negative with mike outside of the actual scandal? Thanks in advance.

Ray as I hope you know you are welcome to stop by say hi chat etc. hope to see you soon and I hope your good health has continued.

 

[mn78psu83]

Golf related.

TPC Jasna Polana?

 

[Misder2]

Golf related.

As in the TSM Charity event?