Dranov was a defense witness. No chance they would try to impeach their own witness.
McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
Thank you Lar! This is what I'm trying to explain to people. He never really changed his story but tried to clarify or interpret things differently once facts started to leak out. People even still hold him to "anal rape" when he simply clarified he never exactly said that. The Person that wrote the GJ presentment said that. However, mikes interpretation now is that's what was taking place but he never saw it specifically.
I think the "matter of fact" was in reference to the fact that MM never replied "NO"
It is easy to pick out the trolls. Look for people who signed up several years ago but have very few posts (e.g., 10). The banned trolls were given amnesty with the software switch. Join dates were retained, but it appears that their post counts were not.
You can impeach your own witness in PA.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/225/chapter6/s607.html
If a witness goes sideways on you, you almost have to impeach.
What's your thinking as why the defense lawyers wouldn't impeach Dranov?
It's pretty pathetic to consider everybody who disagrees with the tinfoil-hat narrative to be a troll. I'm a PSU grad 1992, lived in State College from birth through 4th grade, came back to pay out-of-state tuition, and my grandparents lived right around the corner from the Paternos. FWIW.
I won't call you a troll but you are a hard core member of the "everyone connected with Penn State is guilty as charged (or not charged in the case of Paterno), the trials be damned" camp and you are often intellectually dishonest. You have a near obsessive desire to see C/S/S found guilty and i'm sure you wish they could have tried Paterno before he died. So not a troll per se but not someone worth the effort to debate because you'll just make up whatever you need to to reach your pre-conceived notion of the truth.
You mean like when I made up the actual testimony Dranov gave in the trial rather than doing what you guys do and using the presumed leak from the defense at the GJ that's never been verified? Yeah, that was awesome.
"you guys," as in me? I told you I haven't seen the GJ transcript but was merely proving the source of the info. If you want to go there, how would Amendola been privy to Dranov's GJ testimony?
Mike Dahmus.....we all know who you are and for the love of God, give it a rest. You've been b*tching online about Paterno/Penn State for at least 15 years. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, BSD, TOS, chat groups....jeezus, you're everywhere and have been saying the same crap for 15 years.
I don't know who Mike Dahmus is but it would explain his posts to find out that he had a long running anti-Paterno/anti-PSU bias. No objective person takes the hardline position he's taken.
The basic plot of this whole thing is pretty easy to me. Either McQueary's story in 2011 is different from what he told people in 2001 (2002?) or there was a major pedophile cover-up that included many people including the head football at Penn State, the school's president and VP, and the school's AD as well with no proof of it having been so and without the involvement of the only witness. If the second option is true, then it is ridiculous that they are only being charged with perjury. If the prior option is true then it is ridiculous that all this has gone down the way it has. The second option is truly preposterous when you give it a moment's thought.
The point of Dranov's testimony for the defense was to show that Mike didn't tell him he saw the kid being sodomized or abused. And secondly to note that he is a mandatory reporter.
So what exactly are the different 'interpretations'? People aren't holding him to 'anal rape' words, but they sure as hell should be holding him to ' JS was sodomizing the boy' words
So just to be clear, you guys think that a medical doctor was aware that night that Mike had seen Sandusky raping a child, and his suggestion was that Mike sleep on it and call the football coach in the morning.
Is that about right?
At the end of the day, it will be @JimClemente's report that passes the test of time, imho.
http://paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Jim-Clemente-2.aspx
http://paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Jim-Clemente-2.aspx
agreed. but ultimately people are twisting words out of context to push forward a narrative that really makes no sense and boils down to this:
some people honestly believe Mike McQueary made it clear to 4 different men at 3 different times that he saw Sandusky raping a small boy in a shower. Those men informed at least 3 other men, maybe more. And because of the great big God of football, all of those men - many of whom led decent and virtuous lives - decided it was best to sweep this most heinous act under the rug. and Mike was ok with that.
Maybe I am too judgmental, or just too weary of the steady stream of BS from the haters the last 4 years . . . but let's not mince our words here, m-kay?
People who believe that narrative are frikkin delusional hacks.
Not sure if this is what you are asking for but I'll try this as an example...
GJ presentment stated he left without the boy. (Mike doing nothing to stop it)
MM letter or meeting with his WR stating he stopped it (taken as he entered the shower and separated the two)
MM saying he slammed the locker door (his understanding/interpretation he did stop it)
All three of those things can be interpreted differently by anyone of us but in mikes mind, him slamming the door is him stopping whatever he thought was going on at the time which brings me to...
GJ presentment (anal rape)
MM at CSS prelim ("never said anal rape " but JS had a boy up against the wall... Slight hip motions"
don't recall but assuming this came from the JS Trial( JS was sodomizing the boy)
3 TOTALLY different wordings but all pretty much the same thing which is what mike is trying to interpret.
frankly this is exactly why things played out the way they did back then. Mikes interpretation of events was relayed to at least 5 different ppl and all 5 of those ppl interpreted what mike was saying differently. Back then he(MM) was simply not as sure what he saw as he now says he is or he'd had simply come out and freaking said to all 5 ppl "I think JS was molesting a little kid in the shower. I could not see his privates but I'm certain of what he was doing and he needs to be arrested"
Mike said he did nothing to stop it. Mike also said he didn't speak to police. He later said he did stop it and did speak to police. He even said he spoke to police in addition to Schultz (who he had later claimed was the police).
These are clear changes. Not just a different interpretation.
I still have no idea what Mike said to anyone in 2001 to determine how clear or unclear he was. Even without knowing for certain what he said in 2001, no one's actions in 2001 (including Mike's) are consistent with his claims now that he witnessed JS sodomizing the boy.
He got it in pretrial discovery.
Objection, changing the issue. You lose one argument, try another. Typical McAndrew board BS.
Last edited:
This isn't true. What's true is nobody's actions came close to being consistent with a report of "horseplay in the shower." In fact, the actions are much more consistent with a report of sodomy than horseplay, starting with McQueary reporting the incident to a Campus Security Authority (Paterno) less than 12 hours after it happened.
Luckily, we'll all have the opportunity to eventually get McQuade on the stand. And I hope to God that C/S/S go to trial, and Ms. Roberto gets a shot at him. If that happens, it will be like the Christians vs the lions. And the Christians will have had better odds than MM.
Wait a minute. Let's review the bidding. 1. Somebody said Dranove testified at trial that McQueary denied seeing anything sexual. 2. Somebody else pasted the actual testimony of Dranov in which he said McQueary was too upset to answer his questions. 3. Then somebody else said Dranov testified to the GJ that McQueary denied seeing anything sexual. 4. Then I said, if that were true, the defense lawyers would have impeached Dranov at trial with his GJ testimony. 5. You said that would mean they were impeaching their own witness. 6. I said, no problem.
What you're saying now is that the defense called Dranov to testify that McQueary was so upset with what he saw he couldn't talk. I mean, really? How does that help the defense? And I'm sure the defense wasn't allowed to call Dranov a mandatory reporter at Sandusky's trial because he wasn't in this instance.
You are utterly full of crap. I bled blue and white and was a Paterno fanboy until at least the apartment fight in the mid 2000s. Even after that, it was a "time for Paterno to go" thing, not anti-Penn-State.
oh so you side with Triponey?? nice. tells me all I need to know about your POV . . .
In which case, Amendola was just making it up.
Hard to see how that helps your argument.
How did the way that the 2001 incident was handled result in any Clery Act violations? If I missed it, I apologize, but I haven't seen anyone provide a link to the Clery Act legislation as it existed in 2001. Based on the language in the current form of the federal legislation, I fail to understand how the 2001 incident constituted a Clery crime, or in other words, a crime that needed to be reported in accordance with the Act. For a crime to fit the definition of a "Clery crime," doesn't it have to represent a threat the campus students or employees? I have little doubt that PSU's Clery procedures were not up to snuff, but focusing solely on the 2001 incident, I fail to see how the Clery Act is relevant. Please educate me, thanks!
Right, Amendola would just make up and then leak secret GJ testimony to a reporter that's in bed with the OAG's office. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.
The Clery Act requires that all sex crimes "forcible or non-forcible" be reported. Doesn't make an exception for sex crimes against minors.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1092
Are you saying that you believe that the prosecution leaked Dranov's grand jury testimony, the same testimony whose only purpose is to contradict McQueary's? Why in the world would the prosecution leak testimony whose only conceivable purpose is to damage the credibility of their star witness? Let's think a little harder, here - who would have had access to Dranov's grand jury testimony in December 2011 and would benefit substantially from McQueary's testimony being discredited?
Well, too bad for you and your argument that MM never saw or reported a sex crime. What MM THOUGHT was happening that night in 2001 based on positioning, etc. was irrelevant as far as reporting purposes were concerned. What is relevant is what MM actually saw and he NEVER saw ANY sex crimes/molestation b/c he couldn't see anyone's privates or JS's hands. When you boil it down, all MM actually SAW was a late night inappropriate shower between JS and an unknown boy. That's it.
Nice try though....
hahahaha because the basis of potential Clery Act violations is based on the Freeh Report. AFAIK, the federal investigation is still ongoing.
ever notice how CDW never addresses the fact that the FTR charges are based on the law changing in 2007, and not based on the actual 2001 incident?
This is one of the areas where Freeh completely (and most likely intentionally) misrepresented and mangled the Clery Act as it related to Campus Security Authorities/Joe in 2001. Just one of the areas in his "Report" that showed he was either the dumbest "investigator" on the planet, or a hired hit man.
Similar threads
