McQueary v. Penn State: Has your opinion of Curley, Schultz, or Spanier changed?

[UncleLar]

Have you read this? http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/10/psu-quarterback-and-coach-mike-mcqueary.html
Scroll to the bottom of the article where all of MM's testimonies are listed in one place. There is a lot of doubt based on his sworn testimony.

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes I have seen that blog post by Ray Behar. I wanted to respond to your post on Saturday but decided to wait over a day so everyone could enjoy the euphoria of Saturday night's big win without bringing up this ugliness.

Ray is to be congratulated for all the research he's done into the whole Sandusky affair. His work has raised some legitimate questions. On the other hand, he's also made some very questionable claims. If people put half the scrutiny into Ray's blog posts as they do McQueary's testimony, they might not jump on his bandwagon quite so quickly. This post is an example of where his analysis doesn't cut it.

Let's start with this oft shared visual.

We've all seen this image passed around as evidence that there was no way that Sandusky could have had sex with a ten year old child in the shower. So what's the problem with it?

Did you know that Donald Trump is 6'3" tall (the true height of Sandusky btw, not 6' like Behar states) and that his son Barron is 10 years old (birth date March 20, 2006)? Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Here's one taken three months ago.

Here's another one (also taken at the RNC)

Hmm. That doesn't look anything like Behar's two silhouettes, does it?

Of course, the logical explanation is that Trump's kid is exceptionally tall for his age, which he apparently is. But that then raises the question, is the kid in Behar's drawing exceptionally short?.

Behar states in the picture that the average height of a ten year old is 4' or 48 inches. A quick Google search gives me 59 inches as a ten year old's average height, a full 11 inches shorter than Behar's drawing. To be honest, you'll find a wide range of answers to that question, but no where have I been able to find one that says the average height is 48 inches.

In fact, this chart says that 48" is the median height for a seven year old, not a ten year old (48" doesn't even come close to making the cut for a ten year old).

Given Behar's background, I have a hard time believing this was an unintentional error. But if it was, it was pretty sloppy work.

Another reason this doesn't pass muster, is McQueary's actual testimony. Regardless of how old McQueary thought the kid was, he actually gave an estimate of the kid's height.

From his testimony at the Curley Shultz hearing.

Q: So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A: I would say a foot.

Mr Beemer: Objection, Your Honor
The Witness: Five two, five three.

The chart offered up by Behar is just a smoke screen. It doesn't come anywhere near representing how tall real world ten year olds are nor does it come close to the height that McQueary testified that the kid in the shower was.

BTW - the 5'2" or 5'3" height that McQueary estimated does give credence to the argument that the kid was actually older than ten years old. It shouldn't be surprising that a childless young adult with no younger brothers as a frame of reference has a high probability of estimating a kid's age wrong. But, of course, it made for a more dramatic presentation for the state to run with the ten year old guess, so I can see why they didn't try to correct it.

Also, I'm a bit over 5'10", my ex-wife was under 5'1". I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

 

[LundyPSU]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes I have seen that blog post by Ray Behar. I wanted to respond to your post on Saturday but decided to wait over a day so everyone could enjoy the euphoria of Saturday night's big win without bringing up this ugliness.

Ray is to be congratulated for all the research he's done into the whole Sandusky affair. His work has raised some legitimate questions. On the other hand, he's also made some very questionable claims. If people put half the scrutiny into Ray's blog posts as they do McQueary's testimony, they might not jump on his bandwagon quite so quickly. This post is an example of where his analysis doesn't cut it.

Let's start with this oft shared visual.

We've all seen this image passed around as evidence that there was no way that Sandusky could have had sex with a ten year old child in the shower. So what's the problem with it?

Did you know that Donald Trump is 6'3" tall (the true height of Sandusky btw, not 6' like Behar states) and that his son Barron is 10 years old (birth date March 20, 2006)? Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Here's one taken three months ago.

Here's another one (also taken at the RNC)

Hmm. That doesn't look anything like Behar's two silhouettes, does it?

Of course, the logical explanation is that Trump's kid is exceptionally tall for his age, which he apparently is. But that then raises the question, is the kid in Behar's drawing exceptionally short?.

Behar states in the picture that the average height of a ten year old is 4' or 48 inches. A quick Google search gives me 59 inches as a ten year old's average height, a full 11 inches shorter than Behar's drawing. To be honest, you'll find a wide range of answers to that question, but no where have I been able to find one that says the average height is 48 inches.

In fact, this chart says that 48" is the median height for a seven year old, not a ten year old (48" doesn't even come close to making the cut for a ten year old).

Given Behar's background, I have a hard time believing this was an unintentional error. But if it was, it was pretty sloppy work.

Another reason this doesn't pass muster, is McQueary's actual testimony. Regardless of how old McQueary thought the kid was, he actually gave an estimate of the kid's height.

From his testimony at the Curley Shultz hearing.

Q: So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A: I would say a foot.

Mr Beemer: Objection, Your Honor
The Witness: Five two, five three.

The chart offered up by Behar is just a smoke screen. It doesn't come anywhere near representing how tall real world ten year olds are nor does it come close to the height that McQueary testified that the kid in the shower was.

BTW - the 5'2" or 5'3" height that McQueary estimated does give credence to the argument that the kid was actually older than ten years old. It shouldn't be surprising that a childless young adult with no younger brothers as a frame of reference has a high probability of estimating a kid's age wrong. But, of course, it made for a more dramatic presentation for the state to run with the ten year old guess, so I can see why they didn't try to correct it.

Also, I'm a bit over 5'10", my ex-wife was under 5'1". I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

Mike testified the child was standing upright and height was up to Jerry's chest. Why did the OAG have to show the child on a stool to depict the act that Mike described?

I respect the fact that you try to defend Mike and I agree the 'facts' are loose at times on these boards. But, this argument is pretty weak.

 

[UncleLar]

Mike testified the child was standing upright and height was up to Jerry's chest. Why did the OAG have to show the child on a stool to depict the act that Mike described?

I respect the fact that you try to defend Mike and I agree the 'facts' are loose at times on these boards. But, this argument is pretty weak.

Since I made several points in my post, I'm not sure which one you think is weak (it's certainly at least as strong as Behar's). The only real point that I was trying to show is that Behar's chart depicting the kid as 4 foot tall is flat out wrong. Whether he did it by error or intentionally, I don't know but it is horribly inaccurate. His chart doesn't represent an average 10 year old, nor does it represent a kid estimated to be 5'2' or 3', nor does it represent a kid whose head would come up to Sandusky's chest (in Behar's chart the kid reaches the man's elbow not his chest).

I would like to follow up on the stool point though. Can you point me to something that describes when the OAG had a kid on a stool? I'd like to know the context.

 

[wensilver]

Since we're all friends here, and this is the linchpin to the Commonwealth's case, what you are describing is heterosexual sex between adults, which is what biology intends by design. Not an adult male and a minor male.

I fail to see where this incident - as described in the initial presentment - was physically and acoustically possible, as later borne out with details in courtroom testimony. It's icky, it's disgusting, and not many are willing to discuss this particular incident in great detail - but it's the singular incident which has caused (and continues to cause) so much damage to so many, and has allowed other entities to jump on it purely for their own self-serving interests, greedy motives, improved optics and banner-waving.

I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

I do want to thank Tom and the other mods here for providing an open forum like this for discussion. There has been such a phenomenal exchange of information and so many great viewpoints, given the topic at hand.

This is a giant Rubik's Cube, and as I discussed with an Inquirer reporter the other day, we simply aren't getting clarity and relevant answers - especially from the press.

I'd love to see Frank Fina, John Surma and Dr. Jack Raykovitz on the stand today.

 

[Zenophile]

He was a lowly graduate assistant, thrust by chance into a very difficult position, who went to people he trusted to help him out. They failed him. Once he alerted the PSU administrators, the burden fell on them.

This didn't help.
"'Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?' Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind."

http://www.delcotimes.com/article/DC/20120920/NEWS/309209959

 

[interrobang]

A college athletics director surely should have educated a social worker running a child's charity on the warning signs of CSA. At least that's what Freeh would have told us.

 

[LundyPSU]

Since I made several points in my post, I'm not sure which one you think is weak (it's certainly at least as strong as Behar's). The only real point that I was trying to show is that Behar's chart depicting the kid as 4 foot tall is flat out wrong. Whether he did it by error or intentionally, I don't know but it is horribly inaccurate. His chart doesn't represent an average 10 year old, nor does it represent a kid estimated to be 5'2' or 3', nor does it represent a kid whose head would come up to Sandusky's chest (in Behar's chart the kid reaches the man's elbow not his chest).

I would like to follow up on the stool point though. Can you point me to something that describes when the OAG had a kid on a stool? I'd like to know the context.

JS trial. OAG presented when showing what Mike described including the angle in the locker room and shower.

 

[Aoshiro]

Since I made several points in my post, I'm not sure which one you think is weak (it's certainly at least as strong as Behar's). The only real point that I was trying to show is that Behar's chart depicting the kid as 4 foot tall is flat out wrong. Whether he did it by error or intentionally, I don't know but it is horribly inaccurate. His chart doesn't represent an average 10 year old, nor does it represent a kid estimated to be 5'2' or 3', nor does it represent a kid whose head would come up to Sandusky's chest (in Behar's chart the kid reaches the man's elbow not his chest).

I would like to follow up on the stool point though. Can you point me to something that describes when the OAG had a kid on a stool? I'd like to know the context.

This is all a moot point because we know (thanks to Dranov's testimony) that Mike certainly didn't describe anything so graphic that night in 2001, and therefore we can deduce that he didn't tell Curley and Schultz what he didn't tell to his own dad and Dranov.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes I have seen that blog post by Ray Behar. I wanted to respond to your post on Saturday but decided to wait over a day so everyone could enjoy the euphoria of Saturday night's big win without bringing up this ugliness.

Ray is to be congratulated for all the research he's done into the whole Sandusky affair. His work has raised some legitimate questions. On the other hand, he's also made some very questionable claims. If people put half the scrutiny into Ray's blog posts as they do McQueary's testimony, they might not jump on his bandwagon quite so quickly. This post is an example of where his analysis doesn't cut it.

Let's start with this oft shared visual.

We've all seen this image passed around as evidence that there was no way that Sandusky could have had sex with a ten year old child in the shower. So what's the problem with it?

Did you know that Donald Trump is 6'3" tall (the true height of Sandusky btw, not 6' like Behar states) and that his son Barron is 10 years old (birth date March 20, 2006)? Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Here's one taken three months ago.

Here's another one (also taken at the RNC)

Hmm. That doesn't look anything like Behar's two silhouettes, does it?

Of course, the logical explanation is that Trump's kid is exceptionally tall for his age, which he apparently is. But that then raises the question, is the kid in Behar's drawing exceptionally short?.

Behar states in the picture that the average height of a ten year old is 4' or 48 inches. A quick Google search gives me 59 inches as a ten year old's average height, a full 11 inches shorter than Behar's drawing. To be honest, you'll find a wide range of answers to that question, but no where have I been able to find one that says the average height is 48 inches.

In fact, this chart says that 48" is the median height for a seven year old, not a ten year old (48" doesn't even come close to making the cut for a ten year old).

Given Behar's background, I have a hard time believing this was an unintentional error. But if it was, it was pretty sloppy work.

Another reason this doesn't pass muster, is McQueary's actual testimony. Regardless of how old McQueary thought the kid was, he actually gave an estimate of the kid's height.

From his testimony at the Curley Shultz hearing.

Q: So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A: I would say a foot.

Mr Beemer: Objection, Your Honor
The Witness: Five two, five three.

The chart offered up by Behar is just a smoke screen. It doesn't come anywhere near representing how tall real world ten year olds are nor does it come close to the height that McQueary testified that the kid in the shower was.

BTW - the 5'2" or 5'3" height that McQueary estimated does give credence to the argument that the kid was actually older than ten years old. It shouldn't be surprising that a childless young adult with no younger brothers as a frame of reference has a high probability of estimating a kid's age wrong. But, of course, it made for a more dramatic presentation for the state to run with the ten year old guess, so I can see why they didn't try to correct it.

Also, I'm a bit over 5'10", my ex-wife was under 5'1". I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

Nice work UncleLar but I was focused on MM's varying testimonies at the end of the blog post, not the height chart.

 

[UncleLar]

Nice work UncleLar but I was focused on MM's varying testimonies at the end of the blog post, not the height chart.

Varying testimonies? Like how? Everything he states there is consistent. You are going to have to be more specific, if you are going to claim varying testimonies.

Here are the three items that I typically hear when I call someone on their claim that McQueary's "changed" his testimony.

1. They say he changed the dates of the incident. Not really. His original testimony said he thought it was 2001 but it could have been 2002. He covered both dates, so that's not a change. He just wasn't sure of the date - which isn't surprising when you are trying to remember a decade old incident.

2. He said he saw he looked at them twice in the shower, then later changed that to three times. That is true. That testimony did change. But those testimonies are certainly consistent, if not identical. If you feel it's necessary to impeach McQueary's entire testimony, because he couldn't remember if he made two, or he made three, 2-3 second long glances in a mirror during an episode that lasted around a minute ten years earlier, then I can't argue with you. Your standards are simply pathetically different than mine.

3. In one testimony, McQueary says he did nothing to stop the incident. In another, he says he slammed his locker door to make sure what was going on stopped. There's nothing that's inconsistent here. McQueary specifically addressed that in one of his testimonies. He did nothing to physically intervene in what was going on, but he did make sure his presence was known, so that the assault would stop. That's not a changed story.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Yes, but only applicable to one individual.

Curley = No
Schultz = No
Spaniel = Yes. No defendant should ever play the "I was a very important and busy individual" card, especially under oath. I found GS's claim to be "suspiciously evasive"

 

[UncleLar]

JS trial. OAG presented when showing what Mike described including the angle in the locker room and shower.

That's seven days of testimony. Can you be a little more specific so that I can narrow it down a bit without going back and reading all seven days of testimony? Are you talking about the beginning of the trial?

 

[canuckhal]

Varying testimonies? Like how? Everything he states there is consistent. You are going to have to be more specific, if you are going to claim varying testimonies.

Here are the three items that I typically hear when I call someone on their claim that McQueary's "changed" his testimony.

1. They say he changed the dates of the incident. Not really. His original testimony said he thought it was 2001 but it could have been 2002. He covered both dates, so that's not a change. He just wasn't sure of the date - which isn't surprising when you are trying to remember a decade old incident.

2. He said he saw he looked at them twice in the shower, then later changed that to three times. That is true. That testimony did change. But those testimonies are certainly consistent, if not identical. If you feel it's necessary to impeach McQueary's entire testimony, because he couldn't remember if he made two, or he made three, 2-3 second long glances in a mirror during an episode that lasted around a minute ten years earlier, then I can't argue with you. Your standards are simply pathetically different than mine.

3. In one testimony, McQueary says he did nothing to stop the incident. In another, he says he slammed his locker door to make sure what was going on stopped. There's nothing that's inconsistent here. McQueary specifically addressed that in one of his testimonies. He did nothing to physically intervene in what was going on, but he did make sure his presence was known, so that the assault would stop. That's not a changed story.

Lar, how do you explain that no one is corroborating his testimony and his subsequent actions do not add up to witnessing abuse? And please don't write that they are. Even Dranov and his Dad said it didn't warrant contacting the police. While they said it was serious, no one thought it was worthy to contact police that night or to do any meaningful follow-up. MM said he contacted police when he met with Schultz, but that wasn't even set up by him and didn't occur until later. It will be very interesting to see what AM has to say. I'll bet he will be vague and allude that he was abused but wasn't on that evening.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I have never really had much issue with McQueary's consistency of testifying. I just don't really believe it though. His actions, and the actions of all others that he told, defy his being clear that it was something sexual.

 

[UncleLar]

Lar, how do you explain that no one is corroborating his testimony and his subsequent actions do not add up to witnessing abuse? And please don't write that they are. Even Dranov and his Dad said it didn't warrant contacting the police. While they said it was serious, no one thought it was worthy to contact police that night or to do any meaningful follow-up. MM said he contacted police when he met with Schultz, but that wasn't even set up by him and didn't occur until later. It will be very interesting to see what AM has to say. I'll bet he will be vague and allude that he was abused but wasn't on that evening.

Sorry but I am going to write that they are. John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testimonies are remarkably in agreement with McQueary's given that they are talking about a decade old incident.

You might feel that they should have picked up the phone and called police, but I can fully understand why they didn't. The immediate threat was over and they felt it imperative that if Mike McQueary was going to accuse one of the most revered individuals in the county, he'd better be cautious in doing so. You might have responded differently and you might not have liked the way that they did, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that that was their thought process at the moment.

Regardless of whether you think that their actions corroborate McQueary's testimony, their testimonies certainly do.

 

[canuckhal]

Sorry but I am going to write that they are. John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testimonies are remarkably in agreement with McQueary's given that they are talking about a decade old incident.

You might feel that they should have picked up the phone and called police, but I can fully understand why they didn't. The immediate threat was over and they felt it imperative that if Mike McQueary was going to accuse one of the most revered individuals in the county, he'd better be cautious in doing so. You might have responded differently and you might not have liked the way that they did, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that that was their thought process at the moment.

Regardless of whether you think that their actions corroborate McQueary's testimony, their testimonies certainly do.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes I have seen that blog post by Ray Behar. I wanted to respond to your post on Saturday but decided to wait over a day so everyone could enjoy the euphoria of Saturday night's big win without bringing up this ugliness.

Ray is to be congratulated for all the research he's done into the whole Sandusky affair. His work has raised some legitimate questions. On the other hand, he's also made some very questionable claims. If people put half the scrutiny into Ray's blog posts as they do McQueary's testimony, they might not jump on his bandwagon quite so quickly. This post is an example of where his analysis doesn't cut it.

Let's start with this oft shared visual.

We've all seen this image passed around as evidence that there was no way that Sandusky could have had sex with a ten year old child in the shower. So what's the problem with it?

Did you know that Donald Trump is 6'3" tall (the true height of Sandusky btw, not 6' like Behar states) and that his son Barron is 10 years old (birth date March 20, 2006)? Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Here's one taken three months ago.

Here's another one (also taken at the RNC)

Hmm. That doesn't look anything like Behar's two silhouettes, does it?

Of course, the logical explanation is that Trump's kid is exceptionally tall for his age, which he apparently is. But that then raises the question, is the kid in Behar's drawing exceptionally short?.

Behar states in the picture that the average height of a ten year old is 4' or 48 inches. A quick Google search gives me 59 inches as a ten year old's average height, a full 11 inches shorter than Behar's drawing. To be honest, you'll find a wide range of answers to that question, but no where have I been able to find one that says the average height is 48 inches.

In fact, this chart says that 48" is the median height for a seven year old, not a ten year old (48" doesn't even come close to making the cut for a ten year old).

Given Behar's background, I have a hard time believing this was an unintentional error. But if it was, it was pretty sloppy work.

Another reason this doesn't pass muster, is McQueary's actual testimony. Regardless of how old McQueary thought the kid was, he actually gave an estimate of the kid's height.

From his testimony at the Curley Shultz hearing.

Q: So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A: I would say a foot.

Mr Beemer: Objection, Your Honor
The Witness: Five two, five three.

The chart offered up by Behar is just a smoke screen. It doesn't come anywhere near representing how tall real world ten year olds are nor does it come close to the height that McQueary testified that the kid in the shower was.

BTW - the 5'2" or 5'3" height that McQueary estimated does give credence to the argument that the kid was actually older than ten years old. It shouldn't be surprising that a childless young adult with no younger brothers as a frame of reference has a high probability of estimating a kid's age wrong. But, of course, it made for a more dramatic presentation for the state to run with the ten year old guess, so I can see why they didn't try to correct it.

Also, I'm a bit over 5'10", my ex-wife was under 5'1". I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

Goofball,

Stick to organizing State College "Santa Crawls" every December. They "define" you.

 

[masterbaker65]

You and everyone here has no idea what is really going on. I'm certain Mike's actions will be explained soon enough.

One thing is clear. Mike is a sniveling little COWARD. Mike is the one person that could have done something that nite. He could have checked on the kid or called police. Instead he cowered in the corner afraid of taking any action. Yellow belly coward!

 

[berklion]

"You might feel that they should have picked up the phone and called police, but I can fully understand why they didn't. The immediate threat was over and they felt it imperative that if Mike McQueary was going to accuse one of the most revered individuals in the county, he'd better be cautious in doing so. You might have responded differently and you might not have liked the way that they did, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that that was their thought process at the moment."

Didn't the principal at CMHS sort of go the same path, telling victim 1 he should go home and think about the accusations.
It seems like nobody wanted to believe it was happening, but only PCS&S got skewered over it.

 

[Mixolydian]

Sorry but I am going to write that they are. John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testimonies are remarkably in agreement with McQueary's given that they are talking about a decade old incident.

You might feel that they should have picked up the phone and called police, but I can fully understand why they didn't. The immediate threat was over and they felt it imperative that if Mike McQueary was going to accuse one of the most revered individuals in the county, he'd better be cautious in doing so. You might have responded differently and you might not have liked the way that they did, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that that was their thought process at the moment.

Regardless of whether you think that their actions corroborate McQueary's testimony, their testimonies certainly do.

The last time Mike McQueary saw the alleged victim that night he was with the alleged perpetrator. That is per his own testimony. You know, right before he went trembling to his office to call daddy. So no the immediate threat was clearly not over. Idiot.

 

[UncleLar]

Goofball,

Stick to organizing State College "Santa Crawls" every December. They "define" you.

That they do, thank you. We've raised a significant amount of money, over $50,000, for charity, so I'm proud of them.

 

[Aoshiro]

Regardless of whether you think that their actions corroborate McQueary's testimony, their testimonies certainly do.

Absolutely not. Dranov's testimony in particular certainly doesn't support Mike's version.

 

[artsandletters]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes I have seen that blog post by Ray Behar. I wanted to respond to your post on Saturday but decided to wait over a day so everyone could enjoy the euphoria of Saturday night's big win without bringing up this ugliness.

Ray is to be congratulated for all the research he's done into the whole Sandusky affair. His work has raised some legitimate questions. On the other hand, he's also made some very questionable claims. If people put half the scrutiny into Ray's blog posts as they do McQueary's testimony, they might not jump on his bandwagon quite so quickly. This post is an example of where his analysis doesn't cut it.

Let's start with this oft shared visual.

We've all seen this image passed around as evidence that there was no way that Sandusky could have had sex with a ten year old child in the shower. So what's the problem with it?

Did you know that Donald Trump is 6'3" tall (the true height of Sandusky btw, not 6' like Behar states) and that his son Barron is 10 years old (birth date March 20, 2006)? Have you ever seen a picture of the two of them together? Here's one taken three months ago.

Here's another one (also taken at the RNC)

Hmm. That doesn't look anything like Behar's two silhouettes, does it?

Of course, the logical explanation is that Trump's kid is exceptionally tall for his age, which he apparently is. But that then raises the question, is the kid in Behar's drawing exceptionally short?.

Behar states in the picture that the average height of a ten year old is 4' or 48 inches. A quick Google search gives me 59 inches as a ten year old's average height, a full 11 inches shorter than Behar's drawing. To be honest, you'll find a wide range of answers to that question, but no where have I been able to find one that says the average height is 48 inches.

In fact, this chart says that 48" is the median height for a seven year old, not a ten year old (48" doesn't even come close to making the cut for a ten year old).

Given Behar's background, I have a hard time believing this was an unintentional error. But if it was, it was pretty sloppy work.

Another reason this doesn't pass muster, is McQueary's actual testimony. Regardless of how old McQueary thought the kid was, he actually gave an estimate of the kid's height.

From his testimony at the Curley Shultz hearing.

Q: So the boy was about, say, a foot and a half shorter than Mr. Sandusky?
A: I would say a foot.

Mr Beemer: Objection, Your Honor
The Witness: Five two, five three.

The chart offered up by Behar is just a smoke screen. It doesn't come anywhere near representing how tall real world ten year olds are nor does it come close to the height that McQueary testified that the kid in the shower was.

BTW - the 5'2" or 5'3" height that McQueary estimated does give credence to the argument that the kid was actually older than ten years old. It shouldn't be surprising that a childless young adult with no younger brothers as a frame of reference has a high probability of estimating a kid's age wrong. But, of course, it made for a more dramatic presentation for the state to run with the ten year old guess, so I can see why they didn't try to correct it.

Also, I'm a bit over 5'10", my ex-wife was under 5'1". I can assure you that it was quite possible for us to engage in sex in a shower, so I don't find it the least bit of a stretch to say it was physically possible for 6'3" Jerry Sandusky to have sex with a 5'2" or 5'3" kid despite all these poster here who have claimed it was impossible for years.

Blah, blah, blah. The child would've had to been bent over at the waist to some degree at the very least and JS squatting some. Mike said they were both standing. Not to mention there would have been noise -- grunting, crying, screaming. Mike only saw intercourse in his mind, never in that shower, that night. I am so sick and tired of his slapping sounds, as if intercourse is the only action that could cause that sound. So effin stupid.

 

[Legion of Lions]

This is all a moot point because we know (thanks to Dranov's testimony) that Mike certainly didn't describe anything so graphic that night in 2001, and therefore we can deduce that he didn't tell Curley and Schultz what he didn't tell to his own dad and Dranov.

This is the "Smoking Gun" which refutes the:
(1) basic legal need that the OAG presentment and Freeh Report alleged REQUIRED Penn State to report the incident (an incident that in his 2011 "testimony" stated was "sexual" or "some form of intercourse"),
(2) that the change from 2001 account of what he saw was "machined" into MM's current "criminal" account (3) validity of ALL PA evidence used in the GJP document and the Freeh report. This then calls into place the need to re-examine ALL the supporting evidence which was obtained "by investigators" when they interviewed MM and OTHERS. (I suspect any "hard evidence" concerning these activities has been sent to the TSM shredding department).

Without the ability to CONFIRM the "worst case" account which the state's OAG has promoted for 5+years is an accurate version (and un-coerced), the "testimony" taken and used for the "Story" the public has used to "convict" anything Penn State is nothing more than HEARSAY!!! The entire Sandusky investigation illusion as a duly executed criminal case is CRUSHED. Someone is lying here and considering the statements made BY MULTIPLE PERSONS and the total set of actions taken in 2001...it has to be Mike "the Perjurer".

My suggestion is for Mike to come clean....write a book on how he exposed the most criminal abuse of State power in US history and then ride this money and POSITIVE FAME into the sunset....

Mike, sorry to say this is your best case the only way I see you with a positive long-term outcome.

 

[UncleLar]

Absolutely not. Dranov's testimony in particular certainly doesn't support Mike's version.

You mean your interpretation of what Dranov said differs from your interpretation of what McQueary said.

But ignoring interpretations and sticking to facts, nothing Dranov testified to contradicts what McQueary testified to.

 

[bplionfan]

This is all a moot point because we know (thanks to Dranov's testimony) that Mike certainly didn't describe anything so graphic that night in 2001, and therefore we can deduce that he didn't tell Curley and Schultz what he didn't tell to his own dad and Dranov.

Well the 1st person Mike talked to that night, based on fathers previous testimony, was his father. His father was told of nothing but Mike seeing Jerry in a shower with a boy. And Mike said he didn't witness anything else other than that. This is moments after the incident. So how could he have told anyone he saw anything more than Jerry in a shower with a kid when he admits to his dad that is all he saw. That is it, that's a fact.

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that”
John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Sorry but I am going to write that they are. John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testimonies are remarkably in agreement with McQueary's given that they are talking about a decade old incident.

You might feel that they should have picked up the phone and called police, but I can fully understand why they didn't. The immediate threat was over and they felt it imperative that if Mike McQueary was going to accuse one of the most revered individuals in the county, he'd better be cautious in doing so. You might have responded differently and you might not have liked the way that they did, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that that was their thought process at the moment.

Regardless of whether you think that their actions corroborate McQueary's testimony, their testimonies certainly do.

Lar, thisbpost certainly feels like you are reaching to stick to a belief that Mike handled it correctly. Dranov testified that he didn't feel like a call to the police was warranted that night. That means might did not tell him of witnessing sexual activity. Dranov's response seems to be right in line with Joe and the administrators' response. "This sounds concerning. Let's have this move through the proper channels at the school." Not, "Oh boy, thisbis Sandusky we are talking about. Let's let somebody else handle this."
Either Mike witnessed a sexual assault and failed his duties as a member of society by leaving the scene without notifying authorities or he embellished some parts of the story years later.

 

[UncleLar]

Lar, thisbpost certainly feels like you are reaching to stick to a belief that Mike handled it correctly. Dranov testified that he didn't feel like a call to the police was warranted that night. That means might did not tell him of witnessing sexual activity. Dranov's response seems to be right in line with Joe and the administrators' response. "This sounds concerning. Let's have this move through the proper channels at the school." Not, "Oh boy, thisbis Sandusky we are talking about. Let's let somebody else handle this."
Either Mike witnessed a sexual assault and failed his duties as a member of society by leaving the scene without notifying authorities or he embellished some parts of the story years later.

I don't necessarily think he handled it totally correct but I don't think that he handled it incorrectly either (ignoring the incident entirely, which many people would have, would have been the incorrect way to handle it). Mike took what I feel was one of two acceptable approaches.

This is what I mean by "your interpretation" (realizing that it wasn't specifically you that I made the remark about).

You are interpreting Dranov's decision to not call the police to mean that McQueary did not tell him he witnessed sexual activity. But Dranov's actual testimony suggests that he knew that McQueary was referring to some sort of sexual act. When asked by Sandusky's attorney "Did he (McQueary) describe 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".

Had Dranov testified that McQueary never mentioned anything sexual, then his testimony would have contradicted McQueary, but what Dranov actually said is consistent with what McQueary testified to.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Lar, I am going to disagree with you again. Sexual sounds in the shower are not really an explicit statement. It also leaves out the part of Jerry being directly behind the boy and the arm reaching out to bring the boy back. If those things were said, surely Dranov or his father would have made a call.
If Mike was sure that there was something sexual going on that night than he absolutely screwed up his response to it. No question about it. If we was just creeped out by it but was unsure of what to think, then he probably handled it right in '01.

 

[bjf1991]

One of the (few) things that is becoming abundantly clear:

Any hope that this trial would shed any light, or bring any clarity, to the deeper afflictions and questions surrounding PSU........that is not happening.

It was a long shot, at best......as this trial is, indeed, at its essence, NOT directly related to those issues.
Though the hope (at least for me) was that MAYBE a few doors would be opened along the way........but that was pretty much quashed as soon as the witness list came out (no Lubert, Surma etc or any of the PSU decision makers.....no Fina, Beemer etc or any of the OAG decision makers).....and as we have moved forward, the complete DEARTH of ANY meaningful new evidence being brought forward? Alas..... And we certainly are not going to get that once the Defendant (PSU) takes over with making their case.

Thus far - and we are now 7 days in, and I doubt things are going to change dramatically (it would be nice, but the chances have pretty much evaporated form slim to none) - we are basically rehashing the half-decade old, "beaten-to-death-like-a-rented-mule" storylines.....and some gossip/opinion/and third party hearsay wrt "How PSU treated MM" - - - - which, again, IS the basic premise of the case....and what was to be reasonably expected.
MM will likely win significant portions of his case.....and - I expect - achieve at least a reasonable settlement from PSU - - - - - and THAT is what this suit is about

But - as far as the deeper issues are concerned - nothing gleamed here that is any more meaningful than the never ending "message board circle jerk"......just played out in front of a Judge and Jury this time.

No new information
No "inside" revelations wrt "What PSU Knew" (wrt Sandusky, MM's report etc)
Squadoosh


If/when the "Paterno et al" suit goes to trial.....it will - almost certainly - be the same type of thing.


We have NEVER even had a legal suit filed naming the RIGHT PEOPLE as defendants.......and the chances of that EVER happening, at this point, are essentially nil....(Cough - - A9 - - - Cough)

Unless and until someone with standing starts to actually speak up - to the real meaningful issues - any "quest for the truth" is as dead as that fella' in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

 

[francofan]

One of the (few) things that is becoming abundantly clear:

Any hope that this trial would shed any light, or bring any clarity, to the deeper afflictions and questions surrounding PSU........that is not happening.

It was a long shot, at best......as this trial is, indeed, at its essence, NOT directly related to those issues.
Though the hope (at least for me) was that MAYBE a few doors would be opened along the way........but that was pretty much quashed as soon as the witness list came out (no Lubert, Surma etc or any of the PSU decision makers.....no Fina, Beemer etc or any of the OAG decision makers).....and as we have moved forward, the complete DEARTH of ANY meaningful new evidence being brought forward? Alas..... And we certainly are not going to get that once the Defendant (PSU) takes over with making their case.

Thus far - and we are now 7 days in, and I doubt things are going to change dramatically (it would be nice, but the chances have pretty much evaporated form slim to none) - we are basically rehashing the half-decade old, "beaten-to-death-like-a-rented-mule" storylines.....and some gossip/opinion/and third party hearsay wrt "How PSU treated MM" - - - - which, again, IS the basic premise of the case....and what was to be reasonably expected.
MM will likely win significant portions of his case.....and - I expect - achieve at least a reasonable settlement from PSU - - - - - and THAT is what this suit is about

But - as far as the deeper issues are concerned - nothing gleamed here that is any more meaningful than the never ending "message board circle jerk"......just played out in front of a Judge and Jury this time.

No new information
No "inside" revelations wrt "What PSU Knew" (wrt Sandusky, MM's report etc)
Squadoosh


If/when the "Paterno et al" suit goes to trial.....it will - almost certainly - be the same type of thing.


We have NEVER even had a legal suit filed naming the RIGHT PEOPLE as defendants.......and the chances of that EVER happening, at this point, are essentially nil.

Unless and until someone with standing starts to actually speak up - to the real meaningful issues - any "quest for the truth" is as dead as that fella' in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

There is a much better chance that some meaningful information regarding the genesis of the fiasco will come out in the Nov. 4 Sandusky PCRA evidentiary hearing if AM actually testifies as advertised rather than in MM's whistleblower lawsuit.

 

[UncleLar]

Lar, I am going to disagree with you again. Sexual sounds in the shower are not really an explicit statement. It also leaves out the part of Jerry being directly behind the boy and the arm reaching out to bring the boy back. If those things were said, surely Dranov or his father would have made a call.
If Mike was sure that there was something sexual going on that night than he absolutely screwed up his response to it. No question about it. If we was just creeped out by it but was unsure of what to think, then he probably handled it right in '01.

I agree it isn't really an explicit statement, but that's not the point. People are on here arguing that Dranov's testimony refutes McQueary's when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. Dranov's WORDS are consistent with McQueary's WORDS. What people are doing is interpreting Dranov's follow on actions as being inconsistent with the way that they THINK he should have responded. So be it. They are entitled to THINK that. What they are not entitled to do is falsely claim that Dranov' TESTIMONY refutes McQueary's. It does not. The two testimonies are consistent.

 

[GTACSA]

I agree it isn't really an explicit statement, but that's not the point. People are on here arguing that Dranov's testimony refutes McQueary's when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. Dranov's WORDS are consistent with McQueary's WORDS. What people are doing is interpreting Dranov's follow on actions as being inconsistent with the way that they THINK he should have responded. So be it. They are entitled to THINK that. What they are not entitled to do is falsely claim that Dranov' TESTIMONY refutes McQueary's. It does not. The two testimonies are consistent.

Some lay people have the ability to apply the same principles of legal analysis that attorneys use, while others do not have that capacity.

You sir have that ability and an attorney could not have presented a better rebuttal than you have.

 

[bjf1991]

Some lay people have the ability to apply the same principles of legal analysis that attorneys use [EDIT: And, judging by the posts on this board, MOST attorneys haven't got the intellectual capacity of a road-kill squirrel], .......

You sir have that ability and an attorney could not have presented a better rebuttal than you have.

Well - earning the "recommendation of GTASCA"?.....I guess that's about as conclusive a statement as any......that UncleLar has jumped the shark

 

[Aoshiro]

You mean your interpretation of what Dranov said differs from your interpretation of what McQueary said.

But ignoring interpretations and sticking to facts, nothing Dranov testified to contradicts what McQueary testified to.

It has nothing to do with "interpretation." Dranov repeatedly asked Mike what he had seen and Mike instead kept answering with comments about what he had heard. You (and the OAG) want us to believe that Mike told C/S that he SAW Sandusky was pressed up against a child while just a few days earlier Mike didn't give that information to an MD who SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY asked what Mike had seen.

Dranov's testimony most certainly DOES NOT corroborate Mike's testimony (which is why his cross exam was cut off by prosecutors during the preliminary hearing).

 

[Aoshiro]

I don't necessarily think he handled it totally correct but I don't think that he handled it incorrectly either (ignoring the incident entirely, which many people would have, would have been the incorrect way to handle it).
.

If you think that "many people" would ignore seeing a naked adult male pressed up against a naked child in a shower you are off your rocker.

 

[WeR0206]

Had Dranov testified that McQueary never mentioned anything sexual, then his testimony would have contradicted McQueary, but what Dranov actually said is consistent with what McQueary testified to.

Had Dranov testified that in 2001 MM told him he saw a boy with his hands propped up against the wall with JS hugging him from behind and his pelvis slightly moving (MM's 2010 version) and based on the sounds/positioning MM was 99.9% sure JS was sodomizing the boy, then yes Dranov's testimony would match up with MM's. And if that was the case Dr. D would most certainly NOT have made the determination that what MM told him wasn't bad enough to call police or child services.

Unfortunately for MM that's not what Dr. D said. Dr. D said at the JS trial that MM told him he saw a boy peer around the corner then a hand grab and pull him back in, then moments later he saw JS and a kid leave the shower with towels on. That's IT. Then at the MM trial he said what MM reported that night wasn't bad enough to involve police or child services.

Dr. D. (and everyone else MM told) didn't care what MM implied was going on, only what he could verify. The only thing he could verify was that JS and a kid were showering and it weirded him out. If that's what really happened then I don't blame Dr. D and JM for giving out the advice they did since MM didn't see anything definitive enough to take down a person who had built up his credibility in the community for decades. Treating it as an HR matter was entirely appropriate, neither MM nor JM expressed any dissatisfaction to the admins when they had follow up conversations with TC/Schultz respectively. Neither of them expressed one word of outrage, concern, etc. that JS was still a free man accessing kids through his charity...hmmm..that doesn't seem to line up with MM's version (that he was certain from day one that a kid was being abused) now does it?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I agree it isn't really an explicit statement, but that's not the point. People are on here arguing that Dranov's testimony refutes McQueary's when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. Dranov's WORDS are consistent with McQueary's WORDS. What people are doing is interpreting Dranov's follow on actions as being inconsistent with the way that they THINK he should have responded. So be it. They are entitled to THINK that. What they are not entitled to do is falsely claim that Dranov' TESTIMONY refutes McQueary's. It does not. The two testimonies are consistent.

I agree with you to a point. Dranov's testimony matches the actions of all at the time of the event. His testimony matches some of Mike's testimony. But Mike left out actually seeing anything to Dranov and that is a pretty major part of the story. Where I have issue with Mike is when everybody's actions at the time of the event indicate that they were unsure of exactly what they were dealing with. Ten years later he tells it in a more explicit way that makes it appear that everybody- including his own father- conspired to keep this pedophilic monster free.

 

[LundyPSU]

There is no corroboration that Mike saw anything sexual. And it all gets explained away that he was too upset to say it or didn't want to use certain words out of respect to others. Still doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[marshall23]

No one has corroborated MM's insistence that he saw sodomy or "something way over the line." So what we have left is just that and the actions of all those individuals that he reported to which indicate he reported nothing like that. I seem to recall some individuals promising that this trial would be a revelation about the PSU Administrators and it has been nothing of the sort. As far as Mike's actions at the scene, immediately after, for the decade in between and his new and improved visions, I see no justification.
Now, if he was mistreated as an employee, that is the only question I see as TBD.