I didn't bring the 1998 incident up, Oblivax did and my response was in response to him. I have no information as to whether Joe and/or John knew of it.
Penn State’s former outside general counsel Wendell Courtney advised former VP Gary Schultz....
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
I didn't bring the 1998 incident up, Oblivax did and my response was in response to him. I have no information as to whether Joe and/or John knew of it.
Joe didn't relate the "sexual nature" to Schultz because McQueary didn't relate that to him.
There are a lot of things you don't understand you obstinate fool. Aoshiro is more than capable of speaking for himself, but it is clear to anyone with more than half a brain that there was an implied "if he knew it was sexual and not just horseplay" on the end of his question. That is made crystal clear by his next paragraph.
But of course the qualifier rules you out. Take your agenda and stick it up your ass.
I know we are just going around and around in a circle on this, but that contradicts what MM and Paterno testified to. Something of a sexual nature is exactly what both men said was conveyed at the time. Now, the details of that is clearly murky but the essence was not (again, per the GJ testimony).
As I've said from the start, testimony about words that were spoken a decade earlier is virtually useless. You set too much store by them. Get a dozen members of your family together and ask them individually to tell you what happened at Christmas in 2006. See what kind of results you get.
I'll keep that in mind the next time the neuro surgeon operates on my spine which has been done several times in the early 90’s, the next time I’m on a transatlantic flight with the flight officers bored being cooped up in the planes cabin, or the next time I’m playing “William Tell” with my hunting buddies……look out, the mind is a tricky thing.
God, I love the Far Side Cartoons.
This point cannot be emphasized enough. Just look at the standard case studies of conflicting eyewitness testimony concerning events that were far more recent. It's somewhat depressing. We all filter by excluding, generalizing and distorting information. "The map is not the territory."
This is precisely why things such as Statute of Limitations exist, folks simply cannot be relied on to properly recall details about events from a few years ago let alone 10 years in the past. Somehow bff's fina and feudale were able to skirt that issue no problem at all...good ol' PA!! Oh yeah and CSS were not only trying to recall details of conversations from 10+ years in the past, but they didn't even have real representation while testifying. How nice!!
I agree with you to a point. I think that the "of a sexual nature" statement is broad enough that it is something you would remember 10 years later. But yes, I would expect anyone to remember the finer points.
From the perspective of your hopes and dreams, didn't you mean to say "fortunately"?
Complete nonsense? What are you talking about? Where did I say that Dranov didn't ask him about sexual behavior. I specifically said "They did ask him if he saw actual penetration".
That's a fair question. I was trying to summarize both John McQueary and Dranov's questioning of Mike in one sentence, when I said "they" asked about "actual penetration". John McQueary was the one that specifically asked about penetration. You are right about Dranov just said "what did you see?" and McQueary kept falling back to the sounds.
But when I say that Dranov knew it was sexual, I meant that he knew that McQueary was referring to something that Mike thought was sexual. Obviously, he couldn't know for sure what happened in the shower, but he certainly realized that McQueary felt what was going on was something sexual not just horseplay. Curley and Schultz are the ones who testified that they thought McQueary was talking about horseplay. Dranov and John McQueary knew it was more than that.
That's a fair question. I was trying to summarize both John McQueary and Dranov's questioning of Mike in one sentence, when I said "they" asked about "actual penetration". John McQueary was the one that specifically asked about penetration. You are right about Dranov just said "what did you see?" and McQueary kept falling back to the sounds.
But when I say that Dranov knew it was sexual, I meant that he knew that McQueary was referring to something that he thought was sexual. Obviously, he couldn't know for sure what happened in the shower, but he certainly realized that McQueary felt what was going on was something sexual not just horseplay. Curley and Schultz are the ones who testified that they thought McQueary was talking about horseplay. Dranov and John McQueary knew it was more than that.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, what he relayed to Dranov was that he thought it was POTENTIALLY sexual based on noises that he heard - that's dramatically different than MM telling him it WAS something sexual that he saw and could attest to. He never told Dranov that he actually saw anything sexual or that in fact he had any idea of what specifically was going on in the shower despite Dranov testifying that he asked him at least three separate times what he specifically saw and MM always went back to sounds he heard on each occasion.
I'm not sure what fine point you are trying to make here but here's Dranov's testimony at Sandusky's trial.
Q: Did he describe seeing any particular sex act?
A: No, he did not. He implied that it had gone on with what he talked about with sexual sounds. But did he give me any kind of graphic description? No.
So, in Dranov's own words, he realized that McQueary was trying convey that something sexual was going on in that shower.
You clearly having reading comprehension problems - he does not say that at all. What he says is that Mike "implied" it that concern relative to the SOUNDS he heard - not what he said he SAW or EYEWITNESSED. You can not know something is going on with your ears genius and it is particularly inadmissible in regards to the LAW and COURT.....and Dranov would have known this as a MANDATORY REPORTER who had received training as a MANDATORY REPORTER, which is specifically why he says that MM never described SEEING any sex act. If he had, you can bet your life Dranov would have called the police to protect himself and his medical licenses to practice! But you're nuts that Dranov in any way "realized" that MM was trying to tell him that he knew sex was going on in the shower (i.e., that he SAW and EYEWITNESSED such a thing as the Presentment attempts to claim. Completely full of $hit that conjecturing on the topic based on noises, but never saying you saw anything, equates to a third-party "realizing" that MM was claiming he EYEWITNESSED or knew sexual activity was going on! You can't EYEWITNESS something or "know" that it's going on with your freaking ears from a hallway, two-doors and multiple walls away, LMFAO!).
Last edited:
Then Dranov gave him the wrong advice, which is kind of astonishing given his background.
One - please point me to the law where it says evidence of what you heard isn't allowed in a court of law. That's patently absurd. People give ear-witness testimony all of the time - in fact, McQueary testified about the sounds in Sandusky's trial. Here's his words
"And there are two doors to that locker room -- opened the first door. And immediately upon opening that door I hear showers running and smacking sounds, very much skin-on-skin smacking sound, and immediately became alerted and kind of -- I don't know -- embarrassed that I was walking in on something that I didn't want to see or walk in on.?
Clearly what McQueary heard was admitted as evidence at the trial, so stop this BS about it being inadmissible.
You know, people giving others the wrong "advices". Arnold used to do this little Franco, all the time. And, Franco was his best friend.
but he thought someone from his office was to make that report, he couldn't remember who. My guess is Harmon.
Onward State is reporting that my very favorite Penn State Alumni Association President of all time, Cynthia Baldwin, testified yesterday that McQueary was put on administrative leave because - "Baldwin said the university received 'Violent reports about what people were going to do,' to McQueary and ohers [sic] after Sandusky and the administrators were charged."
Did I miss the part about where she immediately contacted the police with these reports? Also, who else was put on administrative leave for their own safety?
Article: http://onwardstate.com/2016/10/18/m...ueary-was-placed-on-leave-for-his-own-safety/
Did I miss the part about where she immediately contacted the police with these reports? Also, who else was put on administrative leave for their own safety?
Article: http://onwardstate.com/2016/10/18/m...ueary-was-placed-on-leave-for-his-own-safety/
They can present it all they like, but it is inadmissible as to the claim of "witnessing a sex act" bozo - you attempt to claim that Dr. Dranov "realized" that he was reporting the witnessing of a sex act (not the speculating of possibly being present while a sex act was going on in the shower that he didn't actually witness!) - IOW, you are making the same claim the Indictments and SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies claimed....that MM saw and witnessed anal intercourse (and this is what he relayed to Dranov, etc...). Complete bull$hit, MM never told Dr. Dranov that he witnessed a sex act and IN FACT, Dr. Dranov says that MM refused to provide a credible answer to his direct inquiries as to whether this is what he was trying to say by literally asking him if he did see some type of sexual assault (asked him at least 3 times) and every time he asked him, MM would go back to the sounds he heard. IOW, any party in Dr. Dranov's shoes would interpret this back-and-forth conversation as being that MM heard sounds that he "THOUGHT" were sexually related (he would have no way of "knowing" if he only heard sounds genius), but never actually saw anything because he failed to give him a response despite being asked point blank as to what he saw via questions like - okay, I understand that, but what did you actually see?, etc....
There is no such thing as an "ear-witness" being stand-alone prosecutable evidence of a crime, nor would Dr. Dranov have interpreted MM's "thoughts" and "speculations" regarding the sounds he heard as "realizing" that a sex act occurred in the shower and to try to put such claims into Dr. Dranov's mouth relative to the clear advice he dispensed (i.e., to go to HR, not the Police) is really reprehensible and disgraceful "character assassination" of Dr. Dranov! You are such a spinning, flaming POS @sshole in regards to your defense of the scumbags (i.e., Corbutt, OG BOT, etc...), it isn't even funny.
You are so clueless. I've never defended the BOT or Corbett. Somehow you've got that in your head that I have - probably the same screwy logic that you used to come up with the idea that McQueary's testimony about the sounds that he heard was inadmissible. I'm done trying to have a meaningful conversation with you because you are totally illogical and make up things as you go (I've asked you numerous times to show me a piece of legislation that says ear-witness testimony is admissible. Do so and I'll retract my statement. Until then, I say bullcrap on your claim).
"Ear-witness" testimony has nothing to do with WITNESSING SEXUAL ASSAULT you bloviating, lying, spinning, obfuscating @sshole - it is inadmissible relative to acting as a WITNESS to sexual assault because you can not SEE sexual assault with your EAR you f'ing moron!!! Saying, "I think I heard sex when I walked in the building" is not witnessing a sexual assault, nor would anyone understand or "realize" that this is what you are trying to claim, especially when the party speaking with you is a MANDATORY REPORTER and asks you at least THREE SEPARATE TIMES - okay, I understand what you heard upon entering, but what did you actually see, if anything, in the shower - and the party is completely non-respondent to the direct inquiry (again, at least 3 times, not once) and goes back to talking about the "noises" he heard and what he thought they "might" be!
Only a complete a-hole tool such as yourself could characterize this as Dr. Dranov understanding and "realizing" that MM saw and witnessed a sexual assault and was reporting same despite the implications of what this would say about Dr. Dranov's "character" given the advice he then dispensed to MM at the conclusion of the discussion (i.e., that the Police did not need to be called and MM should report it via his HR Protocol as a report of Suspicious Activity in the Workplace)! Not only that, but Dr. Dranov should have been prosecuted as a MANDATORY REPORTER if what you say is true (and have been subject to losing his Medical Licenses to practice!). You are such a lying, spinning douche it isn't even funny and Dr. Dranov's testimony and actual actions when taken in TOTALITY, which is the only way to take them, DO NOT suggest in any way that "he realized" MM witnessed a sexual assault and the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE is the case, most especially Dr. Dranov's recommendation for "follow-up action" by MM to the incident, which was to report it via his HR Protocol as a Suspicious Incident in the Workplace, NOT TO CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY (which Dr. Dranov most assuredly would have done himself if he thought a sexual assault of a child had just been reported to him given the fact that he was a Mandatory Reporter, had been through Mandatory Reporter training and would have known he could lose his licenses to practice medicine for failure to report a "credible report" of CSA).
Last edited:
Come on, UncleLar is anything but a bot lackey. He might have fond dreams about them (forget Peetz, my money's on Anne Riley), but he's never done anything but skewer them.
Come on, UncleLar is anything but a bot lackey. He might have fond dreams about them (forget Peetz, my money's on Anne Riley), but he's never done anything but skewer them.
Really? He seems to be disgracefully "skewering", "shafting" and "character assassinating" Dr. Dranov, JVP, Curley and Schultz (as well as MM's Dad) in his spinning, bull$hit defense of the porn-texting/harrassing, OAG-proclaimed "star witness" Mike McQueary as far as I can tell.....LMFAO!
Last edited:
You can huff and puff, name call, and CAPITALIZE to your heart's content but you can't change the fact that Dranov himself testified that McQueary implied to him that it was a sexual assault. Dranov testimony: "He (McQueary) implied that it had gone on with what he talked about with sexual sounds." That statement makes it clear that Dranov knew that McQueary was talking about something sexual and you can't spin that any other way.
Yeah, he's defended MM in the past and skewered the bot. He has no love for them.
It does not say that you spinning moron - it says that MM told him he heard NOISES that he interpreted and conjectured were sexual sounds. That in NO WAY suggests that Dranov was convinced that sexual activity was taking place or that MM witnessed a sexual assault! In fact, Dr. Dranov's RECOMMENDATION following the conversation CONFIRMS that you, and your selective quoting are full of $hit regarding Dr. Dranov's BELIEFS (not MM's conjectured beliefs!) - Dr. Dranov recommended that MM report it via his HR Protocol as Suspicious Activity in the Workplace rather than to call the Police immediately and Dr. Dranov has testified that he WOULD HAVE called the Police immediately if he thought MM had witnessed a criminal sexual assault!
You are comical, and completely full of $hit, in your claim (and sole attribution) that Dr. Dranov characterizing MM's speculation regarding sounds he heard (i.e., MM implied that he thought the sounds were coming from sexual activity) means that Dr. Dranov found this conjecturing, and this conjecturing alone, to be "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of sexual assault! Complete made-up, spinning bull$hit which is not remotely a reasonable interpretation of Dr. Dranov's statement especially when:
- He says in the same statement that he immediately followed up on this statement by MM and asked him if he saw anything after hearing those sounds when he first walked in......and MM did not respond to this line of question despite being re-directed to it at least THREE SEPARATE TIMES with Dr. Dranov saying that he understood what he heard, but he wanted MM to tell him what he SAW! And MM was non-responsive to all inquiries directly asking what he SAW instead always wanting to talk about what he heard instead. Any MANDATORY REPORTER well versed and trained as a MANDATORY REPORTER would interpret MM's non-responsiveness to direct questioning as to what he saw and infatuation with what he heard the same way -- i.e., MM heard something, but saw nothing!
- Dr. Dranov's advice is to go the Work HR route rather than call Police is COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT with your made-up claim and attribution (i.e., attempting to put words and beliefs into Dr. Dranov's mouth that he never spoke). Dr. Dranov saying MM conjectured that the sounds he heard were sexually produced is NOT EQUIVALENT to saying that Dr. Dranov SHARED this same belief or that he found it "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of sexual assault based on the entire conversation and subsequent recommendation from Dranov AND it is beyond bull$hit to claim that it is!
What's the difference between a "spinning moron" and a whirling dervish?
Last edited:
If Dranov wants to stick with that story they have no excuse for not calling the cops. There's something seriously wrong with all three of them.
I'm not trying to pile on you Larry, but assuming Dranov is describing his discussion with MM accurately, what if anything does that interaction reasonably tell us about what MM led C/C/S to believe?
Telling Dranov one thing does not mean he told C and S the same thing, or in the same manner etc. Given that S had dealt with a previous report about a shower incident that turned out to be unfounded, it's reasonable to conclude MM's message didn't get through if he didn't use the words "anal, rape, etc."
Furthermore, MM has used phrases like "I would have said" and "could have handled things better" under oath when describing his discussion with C and S.
And I'm not trying to paint MM in a bad light per se, but out of anybody in this trial MM has the most incentive to "dramatize" his story.
+1 If as Lar suggests Dranov and Mr. M thought something sexual went on based on Mike's implication, there is no excuse for
. suggesting they go to Joe first unless it is contemporaneously the same night
. it becomes disgusting when they accept Schultz comment if it was made that there is "nothing to sink our teeth into"
. downright evil when they did no further follow up when there was no police follow up ever.
Yes it's so obvious now. Today the alarm bells would have been going off re Sandusky. A lot of coaches refuse to be alone with children they're coaching -- there must be another adult present. Precautions need to be taken.
But this case is about 2001, the year before the Boston Globe priest stories. In 2001 people pictured child predators as Freddie Krueger type monsters in raincoats hanging out in dark alleys. Until the Boston Globe stories, people didn't really envision that a trusted person, a professional person, an educated, soft-spoken person, would not only molest children but actually rape them. You combine that with Mother Theresa public image Sandusky had -- and he would just get the benefit of the doubt 1000 times. No, not even benefit of doubt -- Curley and Schultz probably had no doubt whatsoever. They didn't like hearing Sandusky was bringing Second Mile kids on campus and showering with them. Maybe they even thought there was something creepy about Sandusky and his obsession with boys and his boyish innocence (which was a front, but who knew?) But child rape? I doubt it ever even entered their minds. This was 2001, this was Happy Valley. They were fooled, and it will haunt them till they die I'm sure. I'm sure they go over it in their heads again and again -- every time they saw Sandusky with Second Mile boys -- why didn't they realize?
But that is a very different thing from being accused of KNOWING what Sandusky was doing and covering it up. That is saying these men were monsters. They could have been monsters, but it's unlikely that all three of them would have been monsters and acted like monsters together. Curley, Schultz and Spanier all deserved -- and for some reason were not given -- a strong presumption of innocence. And when Curley and Schultz were indicted, that's all Spanier was saying -- he wasn't saying he knew the truth absolutely, he was just saying they deserved a presumption of innocence.
Five years -- maybe 6 till we see these charges dropped to nothing. But I think we will see it. If they had better evidence we would probably know by now.
But this case is about 2001, the year before the Boston Globe priest stories. In 2001 people pictured child predators as Freddie Krueger type monsters in raincoats hanging out in dark alleys. Until the Boston Globe stories, people didn't really envision that a trusted person, a professional person, an educated, soft-spoken person, would not only molest children but actually rape them. You combine that with Mother Theresa public image Sandusky had -- and he would just get the benefit of the doubt 1000 times. No, not even benefit of doubt -- Curley and Schultz probably had no doubt whatsoever. They didn't like hearing Sandusky was bringing Second Mile kids on campus and showering with them. Maybe they even thought there was something creepy about Sandusky and his obsession with boys and his boyish innocence (which was a front, but who knew?) But child rape? I doubt it ever even entered their minds. This was 2001, this was Happy Valley. They were fooled, and it will haunt them till they die I'm sure. I'm sure they go over it in their heads again and again -- every time they saw Sandusky with Second Mile boys -- why didn't they realize?
But that is a very different thing from being accused of KNOWING what Sandusky was doing and covering it up. That is saying these men were monsters. They could have been monsters, but it's unlikely that all three of them would have been monsters and acted like monsters together. Curley, Schultz and Spanier all deserved -- and for some reason were not given -- a strong presumption of innocence. And when Curley and Schultz were indicted, that's all Spanier was saying -- he wasn't saying he knew the truth absolutely, he was just saying they deserved a presumption of innocence.
Five years -- maybe 6 till we see these charges dropped to nothing. But I think we will see it. If they had better evidence we would probably know by now.
Yes, but that is not a reasonable (or accurate) interpretation of Dr. Dranov's statement - either in its entirety or this selected quote. It also is inconsistent with Dr. Dranov's actions (following up by asking repeatedly if he saw anything in addition to noises he initially heard) and / or recommendation to MM at the conclusion of the conversation (recommending a workplace report rather than calling police immediately). The fact is that Dr. Dranov acknowledging and characterizing that MM thought the sounds he heard initially were produced by sexual activity IN NO WAY suggests that he, Dr. Dranov, was convinced of same or found the noises alone to be "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of CSA, especially after MM was completely non-responsive to his repeated follow-up questions as to what he SAW after hearing those noises with MM always ignoring the question and going back to what he heard....even when Dr. Dranov acknowledged that he understood about the noises and wanted MM to focus on what he saw, if anything, AFTER hearing the noises initially! Again, there is no way to make this inference because this is clearly not what Dr. Dranov is saying "he believes" in the "selective quote" provided, nor overall in regards to the totality of his actions and testimony. Dr. Dranov is merely saying that MM thought and "believed" the sounds were being produced by sexual activity - that in no way suggests Dr. Dranov believed it or was convinced of it....in fact, the remainder of his conversation with MM and his recommendation at the end of the conversation CONFIRM the diametric opposite - Dr. Dranov did not BELIEVE MM actually saw and witnessed sexual assault and Dr. Dranov did not find the singular piece of "circumstantial evidence", the noises that MM conjectured about, to be "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of CSA or that MM really knew what was going on in the shower! What a coincidence - the exact same conclusion one would draw from MM's conversations with JVP, TC and GS, go figure?!?!
Last edited:
Worse than that actually, why were JM and Dr. Dranov given a presumption of innocence and more than that, not even charged which is completely inconsistent with the approach taken with C/S/S! Ditto Raykovitz, he was told in 2001 and had both a legal and TSM-Internal Policy requirement to investigate, but no charges against him (Raykovitz is a Mandatory Reporter under CPS Law - more than that he has a requirement to report and investigate given TSM's DIRECT AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with DPW under CPS Law! Again, had a requirement to investigate under TSM's own policies, etc..!). But none of these others were even charged!
