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

[bplionfan]

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.

There should be no argument or even discussion of this. Moments after Mike sees Jerry he calls home and talks to his dad. During that call, Mike admitted that all he saw was Jerry in the shower with a child and nothing else. No sex, NOTHING else. Add to it he never tells Dranov when Mike went home that he saw sex, and case closed.

Anything else Mike said he saw to others after that was pure fabrication.

 

[colt21]

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.

Respectfully disagree with that assessment

 

[AvgUser]

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.

I disagree with you. Dranov (essentially) contradicts McQuery

MM wants people to believe he witnessed (i.e., heard) sexual assault in progress. Dranov states that he did not believe whatever he was told required immediate police notification. Those two actions and points of view are diametrically opposed to one another.

If Dranov were told that an explicit sexual assault involving an under-age youth was witnessed, then that deserved an immediate call to some "authority". That authority could have been Police, CYS/DPW, PSU HR... someone. Neither Dranov nor McQ Sr saw that as a necessity. Hence, the logical interpretation is that the information MM relayed was not definitive and conclusive. Instead it was vague and nondescript. (Edit: Dranov and McQ felt comfortable with waiting until the next day for MM to tell anyone else what occurred. That is more evidence that MM did not witness what he now wants people to beleive)

MM further wants folks to believe that he told everyone to whom he spoke that he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a child. The actions of everyone in the chain suggests that MM did not communicate that he witnessed what he now wants people to believe. He clearly did not witness anything close to what was in the GJ Presentment.

The assumption, here, is that Dranov, McQ Sr, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Mrs McQ, MM girfriend, Courtnet, etc are all reasonable people and the chances/likelihood of those 5+ people being the only 5+ people on the face of the planet who would not react to hearing evidence of a child being molested are, well, infinitely worse odds than winning the Powerball.

 

[didier]

Appears Diehl testified that Mike told managers meeting in mid 2000s about seeing something "very devastating". Appears he didn't get more specific when pressed.

 

[Bob78]

Appears Diehl testified that Mike told managers meeting in mid 2000s about seeing something "very devastating". Appears he didn't get more specific when pressed.

So again, in 2005 as in 2001, McQ stated something vague to people and did not expound or explain when pressed. How did he expect the issue to be handled correctly if he wasn't forthcoming with the details or his deepest suspicions explained so that there was certainty about what his concerns were? People have to state the truth and explain their points of view or the actual problems are not addressed or resolved. (And this is why TSM and CYS are the real issue here - they at least are trained in understanding that reports are often ambiguous. They got those reports, and did nothing.)
If McQ was always dancing around it whenever he brought it up, no wonder no one at PSU really knew what they were dealing with wrt Sandusky.

 

[elvis63]

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!

You have no clue.

 

[indynittany]

If Mike was making an accusation of CSA, why wasn't anyone concerned that the boy/his family would make a report of the incident to the authorities?

Just to drive home my point. Penn State wouldn't have just been vulnerable because a retired employee sexually assaulted a boy in their facilities, but a current member of the staff would have witnessed it and done nothing. Talk about lousy optics!

 

[Cletus11]

I disagree with you. Dranov (essentially) contradicts McQuery

MM wants people to believe he witnessed (i.e., heard) sexual assault in progress. Dranov states that he did not believe whatever he was told required immediate police notification. Those two actions and points of view are diametrically opposed to one another.

If Dranov were told that an explicit sexual assault involving an under-age youth was witnessed, then that deserved an immediate call to some "authority". That authority could have been Police, CYS/DPW, PSU HR... someone. Neither Dranov nor McQ Sr saw that as a necessity. Hence, the logical interpretation is that the information MM relayed was not definitive and conclusive. Instead it was vague and nondescript. (Edit: Dranov and McQ felt comfortable with waiting until the next day for MM to tell anyone else what occurred. That is more evidence that MM did not witness what he now wants people to beleive)

MM further wants folks to believe that he told everyone to whom he spoke that he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a child. The actions of everyone in the chain suggests that MM did not communicate that he witnessed what he now wants people to believe. He clearly did not witness anything close to what was in the GJ Presentment.

The assumption, here, is that Dranov, McQ Sr, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Mrs McQ, MM girfriend, Courtnet, etc are all reasonable people and the chances/likelihood of those 5+ people being the only 5+ people on the face of the planet who would not react to hearing evidence of a child being molested are, well, infinitely worse odds than winning the Powerball.

Great point in the above bolded and underlined. This notion that JM and Dranov 'knew' the event was over and therefore it was OK not to tell the police is in no way believable. If MM told Dranov or JM that he saw what he thought to be JS having anal sex with a boy in the shower, I can in no way believe that either one of them does not call the police up immediately. No way they talk it over amongst themselves and decide that even though they think a child might have just been sodomized within the hour that the best course of action was calling up JoePa the next morning. And no way that a 28 year old MAN (let's not forget that MM was a MAN when this occurred, not a teenager) is afraid to tell his own father and a trusted medical doctor friend exactly what he thinks he witnessed less than an hour before.