So when asked if he did anything to stop it, he initially said he was too flustered and just left. In 2011, he said he stopped it. So Schultz wasn't the police initially when Mike testified, but later he was? What about Mike's statement that he spoke to the police and Schultz?
McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
Like I said, they aren't story changes. In the first case, he's explaining his actions in more detail and deciding to intepret slamming the locker as "making sure it stopped". That's not a "story change". In the second case, he's deciding to consider Gary Schultz as the police. Neither are changes to his story, they are different interpretations of exactly the same actions.
Huh? Mike specifically said he walked out and didn't do anything to stop it. But later says he did do something intentionally to stop it. He also said he didn't speak to police. So Schultz wasn't the police initially but later was? And who is the other police Mike said he spoke to besides Schultz?
I don't believe we wil ever see TC, GS2 in court. But if by chance a trial should occur....I think Roberto and Co. will have a field day with MM.
Tal. You can't be serious. I'm starting to think you may be a newbe to this case. I'm not going to type ALL of Mike's testimony where he explains this, but I will type the relevant parts. Then I will link you to his trial testimony where you can read his entire testimony. IN SHORT, with some skipping of lines, this is what he testifies to in 2012:
[McQueary: "I see in the mirror Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against the shower. The showers are running, and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy's hands are up on the wall.
I thought maybe I wasn't seeing what I was seeing and looked directly into the shower at that angle and again saw what I explained, Coach Sandusky standing right up against the back of the young boy with the boy's hands up on the shower wall, coach Sandusky's arms wrapped around the boy's midsection in the very, very, very -- the closest proximity that I think you could be in, extremely alarmed, extremely flustered, extremely shocked, all those things.
Q: Was there any --
A: Subtle movement.
Q: -- any movement?
A: I would say very subtle movement, but yes.
Q: Okay. Well, on whose part, the little boy's or the defendant's or both?
A: The defendant's.
Q: What part of his body is moving?
A: The midsection. ]
If you don't think this isn't a 180 degree difference from what he told Dranov he saw ten years earlier, the very night of the incident, then you're crazy. What he told Dranov he saw wouldn't raise any pedophile flags back in 2001. At least not to me.
We all knew he worked with kids back then, and I have taken many late night showers in the locker rooms myself after games and workouts. Taking a late night shower after a workout or game was never a big deal. McQueary told Dranov the kid was not upset or frightened. Check. All he saw of Sandusky was his arm when he pulled the kid back into the shower, and then Sandusky walk out of the shower. OK. Again. No big deal. Knowing that Sandusky's job involved fostering children with the Second Mile, I just have you tell Joe in the morning.
Now, if you tell me what you testified to ten years later, in 2012, we are talking about an ENTIRELY different ballgame. Then we call the cops. I call that a 180 degree change of story.
Here is the link. You will find the relevant testimony embedded in testimony between pages 193 to 197 I believe.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_ JT.pdf
Notice in the chart, MM slamming the wooden locker didn't come out publicly until December 2011. So how did AM in November 2011 being interviewed by Amendola's investigator specifically mention hearing a wooden locker slam the night in question unless he was actually there?
Anyone else recall that the OAG used pictures of mannequins in the locker room to depict the views and the incident from 2001? One of the pictures had the kid mannequin on a stool in front of JS mannequin. Of course Mike never said anything about a stool. But there was no way to show what Mike claimed was happening based on Mikes own description of the boy, JS, and their positioning. Another example of the absurdity of this mess.
But that's not "changing his story". I agree his actions and everyone else's don't match his story but he hasn't changed it. As for the 100 percent comment. That's too isn't changing his story. He stated 100 percent but when someone finically pushed him on it he knew it couldn't be 100 if he didn't see penetration. My point is that this has grown into a internet rumor that he has changed his story multiply times when in fact he hasn't changed it once. What has changed are facts coming out disproving the story he has told in 2010.
Thanks I read that along time ago but didn't remember if it was just another rumor. See my post above of what my point it. MM has been consistent in his story in 2010 and beyond. What's changed are the facts disproving his story
From Joe's testimony that was read into the record in Dec 2011. Mike testimony you reference is from June 2012
Please I wish you would. There is so much "crap" floating around out there that I know longer can distinguish between fact and fiction so please
Give me all the details and don't hold anything back. As John Lennon said "All I want is the truth just give me some truth".
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that no one from the "community" had anything to say about this. Sad.
I'm willing to bet certain people are gagged, thus we won't hear the exclusive details on this forum.
Thats probably very true but then don't come on to this forum telling us how much we DON'T know and what the "truth" is but cant give us any details.
Perhaps an option would be to give credence to James Clemente. Much of what is written here is merely an effort at revisionist history. The intent is to shift blame from one group to another. Could it be that everyone.....MM and those he spoke to that night.....TC, GS2 etc. all did what they thought was correct at the time? Is it possible that as time went on, some had reason to suspect JS was less than a saint? Calling someone a pedophile is serious business and requires proof. Until I saw how this case has unfolded, I thought we lived by the rule of law.
The OAG got a statement from MM. Once that was accomplished the divide was created. I don't believe things just happened that way. MM and those at PSU were merely actors in a drama written, created and directed by The Commonwealth. The very fact that accusations are hurled back and forth here is evidence that they(State) continue to have a successful production run To date no one is nearly as passionate about the professionals who allowed JS to foster, adopt and access children with impunity. As we debate endlessly about the failures of coaches and athletic directors.
The OAG got a statement from MM. Once that was accomplished the divide was created. I don't believe things just happened that way. MM and those at PSU were merely actors in a drama written, created and directed by The Commonwealth. The very fact that accusations are hurled back and forth here is evidence that they(State) continue to have a successful production run To date no one is nearly as passionate about the professionals who allowed JS to foster, adopt and access children with impunity. As we debate endlessly about the failures of coaches and athletic directors.
Dranov testified that on the night in question he asked McQueary more than once if he'd witnessed sexual acts, and Mike replied "no" every time. Any testimony other than this is an admission of guilt by Dr. Dranov, a required reporter.
Of course McQueary changed his testimony; what is unknown is whether it was out of a desire to help put Sandusky in jail or due to "blackmail" pressure from the DA. The former makes MM a reasonably decent guy, the latter is deplorable.
Of course McQueary changed his testimony; what is unknown is whether it was out of a desire to help put Sandusky in jail or due to "blackmail" pressure from the DA. The former makes MM a reasonably decent guy, the latter is deplorable.
The statement you just made is a lie. Dranov's testimony absolutely did NOT indicate that Mike 'replied "no"'. It said that he was too upset to answer, as a matter of fact.
http://onwardstate.com/2012/06/20/day-7/
“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.
“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.
You've seen a transcript of Dranov's GJ testimony? I haven't but Ganim had a source in December 2011 that told her:
"However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.
Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html
Last edited:
It's interesting how people on one side of this issue think that Ganim lied in every respect EXCEPT in reporting what was obviously a leak fed to her, presumably by the defense, which has never been appropriately verified, isn't it?
Read what Dranov testified to in open court as to what Mike told him he actually SAW THE NIGHT IT HAPPENED. I transcribed the testimony above in this thread and linked it. In no way, shape, or form does it match up with what Mike said he SAW 10 years later in open court.
In no way does Dranov's testimony support the claim a few posts back that Mike ever said "No" when asked what he had seen. It does, in fact, match up with what Mike said he saw. Dranov's testimony bolstered the prosecution, not the defense.
McQuery being "too upset to answer" is not "a matter of fact." Yes, Dranov says MM got upset when asked what he saw, but he also said that MM "kept going back to the sounds." Apparently MM didn't break down unable to continue, didn't say something to the effect of, "I can't describe it, just take my word for it, I saw him abusing that boy." He went back to the sounds, which he had already talked about. That's why I've always felt like MM wasn't really sure what he saw that night.
You have to be literally kidding me. All Mike told Dranov he SAW the night of the incident was a boy that was not upset or frightened peek around the corner of the shower, an unidentified arm reach around and pull him back in, and then Sandusky walk out of the shower. That's it.
Ten years later, Sandusky has the boy pinned up against the wall with his arms around him, as close to him as he could be, slowly moving his midsection against the boy's. When Sandusky sees McQueary, he is extremely alarmed, extremely flustered, and extremely shocked.
How in any Universe does that in any way match up?
It's interesting, I don't recall providing any commentary on Dranov's GJ testimony story. But, I do recall you replying to Jack Hammer's post and calling it a lie.
Mdahmus is a troll from TOS. Its pointless to have a discussion with him.
Also as someone posted earlier we dont need to guess on Dr D GJ testimony since we have his JS trial testimony.....and it shows that MM never reported CSA, only a late night inappropriate shower bc he couldnt really tell what js and the boy were doing (imo it was most likely a repeat of 98)
The MM was too upset to fully explain to Dr. D what he thought was happening that night excuse is incredibly weak. He just talked to his dad about the incident a few mins before Dr D arrived, then all of a sudden he clams up?? Come on now. That was the whole reason JM called him over --to consult them!! What about the next day and the day after, was MM still too upset to explain? If that really was the case i have a hard time believing that Dr D never asked JM/MM "hey whatever happened that one night when you called me over to listen to and consult mike, when he was so upset he couldnt even describe what happened besides hearing slapping sounds?"
Also as someone posted earlier we dont need to guess on Dr D GJ testimony since we have his JS trial testimony.....and it shows that MM never reported CSA, only a late night inappropriate shower bc he couldnt really tell what js and the boy were doing (imo it was most likely a repeat of 98)
The MM was too upset to fully explain to Dr. D what he thought was happening that night excuse is incredibly weak. He just talked to his dad about the incident a few mins before Dr D arrived, then all of a sudden he clams up?? Come on now. That was the whole reason JM called him over --to consult them!! What about the next day and the day after, was MM still too upset to explain? If that really was the case i have a hard time believing that Dr D never asked JM/MM "hey whatever happened that one night when you called me over to listen to and consult mike, when he was so upset he couldnt even describe what happened besides hearing slapping sounds?"
The only testimony we have that anybody can verify is from the actual trial, not the GJ, and it makes Jack Hammer's post a lie. It's a common lie, spread by many of you guys, but it's still a lie.
I'll try to speak plainly so even a jackass like yourself can understand. When public statements are used for the basis of saying something, it is not a lie. It may not be factual but it's not a lie. Your recourse to calling me a liar demonstrates what a nimrod you are.
Everybody knows the "source" of that information was Joe Amendola. He was trying to trash a witness publicly in advance of trial. If Dranov said something differently at trial than his GJ testimony, Sandusky's lawyers would've impeached him with his prior testimony.
You've been a member of this board for fourteen years. When you post something that has been rebutted dozens of times of this board, it's fair to call your post a lie.
The only rebuttal is in your fantasy world. If dranov was told about sexual acts, he broke the law by not reporting it.
And just for the record, I long ago wrote you off as an honest poster. You're either a BoT lackey or bear a grudge that MM didn't copy you when he emailed his selfies.
You tried to pull the same nonsense that many others have pulled - claiming that Dranov testified that McQueary said NO.
There is no reliable information to support this claim. Its only purpose is to mislead people into thinking McQueary's story has changed.
When you do something on purpose that you know will tend to make people believe something that isn't true, what would you call it? I'll go as far down as "dissembler".
Ha Ha this is great. You're a veritable font of disinformation. Dranov was not a mandatory reporter as regards McQueary's allegations because he (Dranov) was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time he learned of the allegations. It's right there in the frickin statute.
This has also been the subject of numerous posts on this board.
"Dissembler" is being really kind.
Who cares who the source was or what Ganim wrote?? IN OPEN COURT, Dranov testified what McQueary told him he SAW. What McQueary told Dranov he SAW an hour after the incident bears no resemblance whatsoever to what McQueay testified he SAW 11 years later in open court.
I mean let's face it. We all remember details of things that happened 11 years ago better than we remember details of things that happened an hour ago, don't we? I remember details of things that happened in 2004 a LOT better than I remember details of what I did today at lunch. Don't you?
By the way. What DID you have for lunch on April 25 2004? Where did you have it at? Was anyone with you? If you ate with anyone, what did you talk about? I'm sure your answers to those questions would be more accurate remembering back to 2004 than they would if I asked you those questions as they relate to an hour ago. Don't you agree?
Similar threads
