That's straight from open court in the Sandusky trial. I don't have time to look for the transcripts and link them because I have to go. But they are there. Maybe I will link them later today if I get time. But that testimony IS available.
McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
That's straight from open court in the Sandusky trial. I don't have time to look for the transcripts and link them because I have to go. But they are there. Maybe I will link them later today if I get time. But that testimony IS available.
Ive done my homework on this but Id like to reread this testimony. Care to provide a link on what you just posted? Also just because mike didn't tell someone he saw a boy up against the wall doesn't mean he changed his story. He just didn't tell that detail to Dranov. Just like he left out details to Joe. MM screwed up big time in the fact that he was not clear to anyone about anything. His testimony is full of "I would have said" "I would have done" BS. Including "I made it clear". But here we are 14 years later an he didn't make a single thing clear to anyone what he saw including himself. To this day I don't think he even knows what he saw but he hasn't "CHANGED" anything. He just never explained anything properly to his dad, dranov, Joe, Tim, Gary, the police, the GJ and the list continues. But nothing has changed from HIS story. Heck, if what you posted above is true then he should be asked on the stand why he didn't tell Dranov that he saw a boy up against the wall. The biggest issue right now is nobody has really hammered him on the stand to a point that HIS story could even change.
This is the part that puzzles me as well. Almost seems like there's some personal animosity somewhere causing this.
So I just reread some of the testimony that Ray has posted on his site of Dranov. I say some because there appears to be more and I just read the snapshots he has up in the article. It appears that he DID NOT tell Dranov what he saw and only what he heard when Dranov asked about it being sexually or something like that. Dranov also mentions that he stopped asking because MM was so upset and shaking. He did mention that MM did see them in the mirror and in the shower when he looked in. It doesn't appear Dranov was asked what mike said he saw when he looked in. So again. I fail to see how this means he changed anything.
IMO, the biggest thing that MM changed over the years was his "certainty" of what JS and the kid were doing changed from not really sure in 2001 to "I'm certain JS was sodomizing the boy" in his 2010 statements/testimony.
In fact, this discrepancy of his certainty was illuminated by Roberto during her cross of MM in the 12/16/11 Prelim. She finally get's MM to admit in court that he wasn't 100% sure of what JS and the kid were doing.
Here's the link to the 12/16/11 Prelim (MM actually contradicts himself within the same Q&A by Roberto--at first he says he's sure about what he saw then then a few lines down he admits he wasn't 100% sure):
Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important.Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
That is a HUUUUGGGEEE discrepancy when compared to MM's 2010 statement to police and GJ testimony. You can bet that C/S and Dr. D/JM drilled down to the same thing in 2001 that Roberto did, which was "can you say for sure what JS and the kid were doing?"....and the answer in 2001 IMO, was NO.
That's the ONLY way to make ANY sense of everyone's actions in 2001.....IE.....2001 was treated as a 2 alarm fire -- inappropriate late night shower instead of a 5 alarm fire IE -- MM just saw JS raping a boy in the showers (which is the 2010 version of the story).
In fact, this discrepancy of his certainty was illuminated by Roberto during her cross of MM in the 12/16/11 Prelim. She finally get's MM to admit in court that he wasn't 100% sure of what JS and the kid were doing.
Here's the link to the 12/16/11 Prelim (MM actually contradicts himself within the same Q&A by Roberto--at first he says he's sure about what he saw then then a few lines down he admits he wasn't 100% sure):
Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important.Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
That is a HUUUUGGGEEE discrepancy when compared to MM's 2010 statement to police and GJ testimony. You can bet that C/S and Dr. D/JM drilled down to the same thing in 2001 that Roberto did, which was "can you say for sure what JS and the kid were doing?"....and the answer in 2001 IMO, was NO.
That's the ONLY way to make ANY sense of everyone's actions in 2001.....IE.....2001 was treated as a 2 alarm fire -- inappropriate late night shower instead of a 5 alarm fire IE -- MM just saw JS raping a boy in the showers (which is the 2010 version of the story).
And McQueary said that he watered down his story when he met with Joe the next morning in 2001. How convenient that he claimed in 2011 that he was certain it was sexual.
Regardless of any assumpions about what McQueary exactly said to Joe, acccording to Joe's interview with Sassano, Joe made it very clear that he knew what was happening from what Mike said.
Is it possible that McQuade's contract was different than those of other ACs in terms of what he/they would receive on termination? If they weren't, if PSU did not live up to what was promised in MM's contract, or if he got a different package after the fact, then he has a case.
This is EXACTLY what McQueary told Dranov he SAW an hour after the incident, and I quote Dranov:
[Dranov: "And then he said he looked toward the locker or the shower and a young boy looked around. He made eye contact with the boy. I asked him -- to the best of my recollection, I asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened. He said no. An arm reached out and pulled the boy back.
Q: That's about all he told you he saw?
A: No. I can't remember exactly what he said after that, but it was something about going back to his locker and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out and it was Jerry Sandusky.
Q: That's basically the description he left with you to the best of your recollection that night?
A: Yes " ]
Ten years later. McQueary testifies he saw the kid up against the wall with Sandusky behind him slowly moving his midsection against the kid. Seems like a small detail McQueary should have told Dranov (if he really saw it) an hour after it happened. Why didn't he include that in his description to Dranov?
Sorry, but to me, that is the preeminent example of changing your story. It's more believable that he told Joe what he told Dranov ten years ago than what he told the cops a decade later when they confronted him with the selfie.
Here's the link to Dranov's actual testimony. I believe it starts at the bottom of page 8 and runs through to page 16. This is the first time I've posted a link in this new format, so let's hope it works.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%2C GERALD 062012 JT.pdf
Have I mentioned how awesome the Ignore feature is?
Have I mentioned how big an idiot that troll is?
Hey pot, let me introduce you to Kettle.
Have I mentioned how awesome the Ignore feature is?
All we need now is an IP blocker so we could rid ourselves of you and your other personalities.
If that's how you feel about multiple personalities then it surprises me that you are ok with all of Ed's
It remains a mystery to me how anyone could read McQueary's grand jury testimony, and then read Paterno's grand jury testimony and the transcript of his interview with Detective Sassano, and not conclude that Penn State was at least negligent in failing to investigate McQueary's report. Even if McQueary didn't actually see what he thought he saw, even if Paterno was somewhat equivocal in describing what McQueary told him, there's more than enough there to warrant a University investigation of McQueary's report. Why didn't Penn State launch an investigation and determine what was true and what wasn't?
You'd have to conclude that McQueary made the incident up whole cloth and that Paterno was too brain-addled to have any idea what he was saying in order to justify a failure to investigate.
You'd have to conclude that McQueary made the incident up whole cloth and that Paterno was too brain-addled to have any idea what he was saying in order to justify a failure to investigate.
Mike blew the entire situation open and now because of being the whistleblower can't get a coaching job. True or false? By the way, he already admitted on the stand he didn't witness anal rape.
I'd like to read the real Grand Jury testimony. Hell, if he threatens to tell how little he saw JS probably gets another trial.
Sure, Trey. We believe you. After all, your track record here is stellar, and I'm sure you've been following this issue for quite some time.
Oh, wait. I just noticed your post number. I guess you really might just be a troll, after all. Silly me.
it remains a mystery how anyone can believe Mcqueary and Joe both recalled with absolute perfection a conversation they had on a Saturday morning 10 years before they testified.
but more to the point, Joe DID launch an investigation. That went through Curley (who did speak with both mcQueary and Sandusky), schultz and Spanier . . . and ultimately to Sandusky's employer. And Schultz apparently conferred with the University's counsel to seek advice on what he needed to report.
oh yeah, and the OAG even concedes in their FTR charges that C/S/S did nothing illegal in 2001. Seriously.
I think some others here need to get a grip on what is true and what isn't.
Well, "it remains a mystery to me" how McQueary can go from seeing a boy who wasn't upset or frightened peek around the corner of the shower, see an unidentified arm pull him back in, and then not see anything else till Sandusky walks out of the shower the night of the incident to immediately changing his story the next day to what he is saying 10 years later (saw the boy pinned up against the wall with Sandusky behind him slowly moving his midsection against the boy). That would be a total 180 in less than 12 hours. AM's account (Vic 2) matches what Dranov was told more than what McQueary is saying now.
The more logical conclusion is that McQueary told Joe pretty much what he told Dranov. Joe, like Dranov assumed from McQueary's report that the kid was in no immediate danger, and did what he was supposed to do per the proper reporting procedures in 2001.
If Schultz tells Courtney what McQueary told Dranov, everything fits. Penn State is not mandated to report in 2001. Logical assumption is the kid in the shower is one of Sandusky's foster kids overseen by The Second Mile. Tell Second Mile to have Jerry keep his kids off campus after hours.
Based on what McQueary told Dranov, and Sandusky's position as it related to his kids in 2001, I would have never in a million years suspected pedophilia if not for the Grand Jury Presentment..
No, you'd have to conclude that since MM (the one and ONLY witness) didn't feel what he thought was happening that night warranted him filing a police report/make a written statement to UPPD (something the one and only witness would need to do if they really did want a criminal investigation started), C/S did everything they could from their end.
They consulted PSU counsel, talked to MM, and then came up with an action plan that included: confronting JS and telling him his late night showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop (they contemplated bringing in DPW as an "independent child welfare agency" if JS didn't agree that his behavior was wrong-this plan to confront JS was also the reason Spanier said he admired TC's approach), took away his keys, revoked his guest privileges, and told JS they were going to inform his boss Dr. Jack Raykovitz (you know, that guy who was a PhD running a state licensed children's charity--who was legally responsible for what happened to TSM kids and their well being) about the incident and their new directives with or without JS's cooperation.
Again, C/S went ABOVE AND BEYOND what they were legally required to do in 2001. They could have done absolutely nothing and STILL didn't break the FTR law at the time.
Also if you read the 12/16/11 prelim, you'll see that when TC followed up with MM by phone and when JM had his follow up chat with Schultz a few months later, NEITHER of them told C/S that they were dissatisfied, felt more needed to be done, or that the police needed to be involved (aka--they never asked Schultz why no one from UPPD ever came to get MM's written statement if he really did want a criminal investigation to get started). How do you reconcile this testimony with MM's 2010 version of him being certain in 2001 that a kid was getting abused?? How can a person who is supposedly certain a kid was getting raped NOT express dissatisfaction when they see JS never even get arrested or at least have his access to kids revoked???
The only explanation I can think of is that MM was NOT certain in 2001 a kid was getting raped. What he did know was that he saw JS taking a late night inappropriate shower that was over the line and weirded him out (rightfully so) and that's what he reported (a 2 alarm fire NOT a 5 alarm fire).
As far as C/S knew, the one and only witness was satisfied with how they handled his report and they all went on with their lives.....
Fast forward 10 years later and the police come knocking on MM door and poof, MM all of the sudden is "certain" JS was sodomizing a boy that night and reported it as such in 2001. Well, too bad for MM that no ones actions in 2001 (including his own via NEVER filing an actual police report or at least making a written statement to UPPD) and his testimony about never expressing dissatisfaction match up with that. They only way to make sense of that is if MM really wasn't sure what JS and the kid were doing that night and he was satisfied with how C/S handled his report.
IMO in 2010 MM threw C/S/S/and by extension JoePa under the bus when he tried to play revisionist history with his written statement to the OAG/police about his "certainty" of what happened in 2001.
Last edited:
There are only two alternatives here. "Something of a sexual nature" or "horseplay in the shower."
If you are going to believe Curley and Schultz you have to believe that both McQueary and Paterno "watered down" their accounts so much that "something of a sexual nature" became "horseplay in the shower."
That is simply not believable.
If you are going to believe Curley and Schultz you have to believe that both McQueary and Paterno "watered down" their accounts so much that "something of a sexual nature" became "horseplay in the shower."
That is simply not believable.
Incorrect, you're either/or scenario is relying solely on people's 10 year recollection in front of a GJ. What you need to do is look at people's ACTIONS in 2001 and the 2001 emails, notes, etc. Wow! What a novel idea!!
Also, MM's written statement to police went far beyond saying "something of a sexual nature", he said he was certain JS was anally raping a boy. Pretty big difference there....
Apparently, if you believe the current narrative, MM didn't feel that being certain JS raped a 10 yr old boy warranted him making a written statement to police or even an anonymous call to DPW's ChildLine. Hmm.....that's quite odd wouldn't you say?
Would "something of a sexual nature" include JS giving a naked bear hug from behind during horseplay??? If so, the state's own child care experts and CC DA gave that very same behavior their good housekeeping stamp of approval in 1998 as far was the admins knew.
Is it now the admins fault for not knowing any better than the state's child welfare experts??
Where are you coming up with this "pinned up against the wall while moving his mid section"?
Edit: just for the record. MM never said he told Tim or Gary that btw. If he did say that to them, then I'm pretty sure we would never be having this conversation. On a side note I think it was Roberto who question mike and tried to get him to say what he actually told the two but it was objected and sustained. frankly I don't expect anybody to remember exactly the wording 10 years later but when two ppl are at a prelim to face a trial for perjury I think it's pretty relevant. The "I made sure my point was made" doesn't cut it. Especially when himself and 3 other ppl felt the best actions were to report it up the chain.
Last edited:
Just so I'm clear since we are on page 2 now. Has anybody proven that MM has changed his story? Watering things down to certain ppl and not others is not changing his story btw. Also his actions then and actions now are still not considered changing his story.
Personally I don't believe he saw what he now says he's certain he saw but that doesn't mean he changed his story since all hell broke loose in Nov.
Personally I don't believe he saw what he now says he's certain he saw but that doesn't mean he changed his story since all hell broke loose in Nov.
Yes, we have, if you've been reading the posts. Everyone's actions in 2001 were reacting to MM's 2001 version of his story so I don't know how you can claim that peoples 2001 actions aren't part of MM's 2001 story. They are DIRECTLY related. Looking at peoples actions is all we have to go on for the 2001 version of his story b/c MM never felt compelled to make a written statement to police or make sure a police report was filed, make a written statement for his records, etc.. Those actions do NOT indicate people were told about a 5 alarm fire (which is what MM's 2010 version of the story is). Therefore, when comparing peoples actions then to the testimony of now it shows how MM's story has changed from 2001 to 2010.
Also, in MM's own testimony from the 12/16/11 prelim he CHANGES his story. Go look at my previous post where I transcribed the Q&A between him and Roberto. MM says he was sure what he saw, then a few sentences later he admits he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the boy were doing. Those two statements are in-congruent. If he was sure what he saw then he'd be sure of what JS and the boy were doing. He can't have it both ways. One can't be sure of something that they never saw, and MM never saw molestation/CSA.
Not a stretch at all. It is pretty clear Joe didn't remember certain aspects of what transpired in 2001.
Simply put.....what everyone did, including Mike, JM and Dr.D, doesn't make sense when you look at his story told 10+ years later.
Mike didn't say he watered it down. Rather he didn't use certain words out of respect to Joe.
Except what Joe told Sassano isn't what Mike claimed he saw or what he claimed he told Joe.
Sooner or later, people need to realize Joe's testimony and statements are not that reliable. Unfortunately, his testimony and statements are a big reason why this blew up.
Thanks for posting the link. I was actually referencing his GJ testimony not being public. But this is very helpful. And another example of how bad Rominger was. Seems like we will hear from Dranov again....This is EXACTLY what McQueary told Dranov he SAW an hour after the incident, and I quote Dranov:
[Dranov: "And then he said he looked toward the locker or the shower and a young boy looked around. He made eye contact with the boy. I asked him -- to the best of my recollection, I asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened. He said no. An arm reached out and pulled the boy back.
Q: That's about all he told you he saw?
A: No. I can't remember exactly what he said after that, but it was something about going back to his locker and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out and it was Jerry Sandusky.
Q: That's basically the description he left with you to the best of your recollection that night?
A: Yes " ]
Ten years later. McQueary testifies he saw the kid up against the wall with Sandusky behind him slowly moving his midsection against the kid. Seems like a small detail McQueary should have told Dranov (if he really saw it) an hour after it happened. Why didn't he include that in his description to Dranov?
Sorry, but to me, that is the preeminent example of changing your story. It's more believable that he told Joe what he told Dranov ten years ago than what he told the cops a decade later when they confronted him with the selfie.
Here's the link to Dranov's actual testimony. I believe it starts at the bottom of page 8 and runs through to page 16. This is the first time I've posted a link in this new format, so let's hope it works.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%2C GERALD 062012 JT.pdf
How about initially saying he didn't do anything to stop it? How about initially saying he didn't speak to police about it? How about eventually saying he spoke to police and the head of University police.
To be sure. The two passages of Joe's Grand Jury testimony regarding what McQuade told him:
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
...............................................................................................................
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
Sounds like someone reaching f\or recollection. Did Joe pull "fondling" out of the air because nowhere else does McQuade describe anything resembling fondling.
But Joe doesn't know what to call it, "not sure exactly what it was." There is considerable difference between fondling and anal rape. Why did the prosecutor not seek clarification? Frankly, I just don't see how that testimony can be relied on for anything.
And I keep asking myself did Joe in 2011, ailing, faculties failing, but still as proud and vain as ever, before his Grand Jury testimony have a sit down with McQuade to refresh his memory?
That's not a story change, that's just a reinterpretation of his actions. Slamming his locker door, when intepreted in the most favorable light to McQueary, can be considered taking an action to insure that what was going on stopped. Talking to Gary Schultz, again, when interpretted most favorably toward McQueary, could be considered speaking with the police. Those intepretations do not represent a "story change". They are simply different interpretations of the same acts - and thus are consistent.
Similar threads
