Penn State’s former outside general counsel Wendell Courtney advised former VP Gary Schultz....
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
Too funny, the Band of Liars can't even keep their own stories coherent or straight....oh what a web we do weave when we first practice to deceive...
I believe some posters need to bone-up on the following definition:
OTOH, "eyewitness testimony" is considered "Direct Evidence":
In regards to their indictment and SWIGJ Presentment, the State represented that they had "Direct Evidence" relative to the 2001 Incident (actually they were labeling it as the 2002 incident originally) which was a proven lie and via the "Circumstantial Evidence Instruction" the jury is to ignore Circumstantial Evidence that can be consistent with innocence or guilt (i.e., a noise). The only reason the State claimed they had Direct Evidence is they had no case otherwise and how the prosecution was not sanctioned when it was proven that they intentionally lied regarding having Direct Evidence in regards to the case in both the indictments and SWIGJ Presentment is rather baffling, but speaks to how thoroughly corrupt and debased (both morally and Government-wise) PA truly is - they simply trampled Constitutionally due-process rights without a care in the world.
OTOH, "eyewitness testimony" is considered "Direct Evidence":
In regards to their indictment and SWIGJ Presentment, the State represented that they had "Direct Evidence" relative to the 2001 Incident (actually they were labeling it as the 2002 incident originally) which was a proven lie and via the "Circumstantial Evidence Instruction" the jury is to ignore Circumstantial Evidence that can be consistent with innocence or guilt (i.e., a noise). The only reason the State claimed they had Direct Evidence is they had no case otherwise and how the prosecution was not sanctioned when it was proven that they intentionally lied regarding having Direct Evidence in regards to the case in both the indictments and SWIGJ Presentment is rather baffling, but speaks to how thoroughly corrupt and debased (both morally and Government-wise) PA truly is - they simply trampled Constitutionally due-process rights without a care in the world.
I wish would ask Anthony about the subpoenas the CPW was suppose to have been given, relative to the records. Did CPW have the subpoenas or did they have the records? He testified, IIRC, they subpoenaed the records of CPW, and they have them.
The reason for going to Joe could be the following. Mike McQueary was about to accuse probably the second most respected individual in Centre County (behind Paterno) with one of the most heinous crimes that one can think of. If you are going to do that, you damn well better have your ducks all lined up. It made perfect sense, from a self-preservation perspective, for Dranov and John McQueary to suggest that Mike go to Paterno.
I'm sorry, but that is not what their training would tell them to do, nor does it even make much sense given Paterno's reputation for not interfering in legal matters.
Here's a newsflash: The people who think like this are the people with the culture problem. You are the problem.
It would not occur to most Penn Staters that the right thing to do in this case would be to call the football coach instead of the police. That's just whack. It's crazy.
We'd all be better if you and anyone else who thinks this way would just leave and go away someplace like, for example, North Carolina.
Regardless, John McQueary's first thought would have been for the safety of his son. That's human nature. It's also why he told him to get out of the locker room immediately. Their next step would be to implement a plan of action. Thank goodness, they had the wherewithal to actually report it to somebody rather than look the other way as others had previously done. With benefit of hindsight, they probably wish they had gone to the police immediately (or maybe, given how things have turned out, they even wish they had kept their mouths shut, which, thank goodness, they didn't do). I don't fault them for taking that plan of action. It's PSU that dropped the ball afterward and I hold Schultz mostly to blame for that. Curley and Schultz's interview with McQueary should have been documented. That is the first huge mistake that they made..
Contemporaneously the same night I agree. Maybe even same time the next day if JVP was unavailable that night.[was he?] You don't wait because 9:30 at night is too late for an old man. I am sure for something this urgent you call immediately.
Never only to JVP and not police and certainly never with a "watered down" [Mike's words}report.
Sorry Lar doesn't pass the smell test.
That's the thing, you're not even supposed to call the police (unless its a crime in progress), you're supposed to call child line and let them figure out who to get involved. Those calls are supposed to be immediate, within 24 hours, leaving plenty of time for them to give Paterno a heads up. I actually don't have a problem with everyone's reactions given what MM relayed in 2001. However, if MM's 2010 testimony is true, John and Dranov are the ones who dropped the ball. I applaud MM for trying to do the right thing, I really do, but either MM's recollection in 2010 is faulty, or John and Dranov really screwed up in 2001.
What? This absolutely CONTRADICTS the reasons Dr. Dranov just gave for why he recommended what he recommended (i.e., go the workplace reporting via HR Protocol route, because Police did not need to be called BASED ON WHAT MM REPORTED TO HIM -- that MM's "report" to him did not rise to the level of a REPORTABLE INCIDENT based on his training and knowledge of the statutes as a MANDATORY REPORTER, which is why Dr. Dranov was called into the equation in the first place!!!). You are freaking unreal that you continue to put words in Dr. Dranov's mouth that ABJECTLY CONTRADICT what he has clearly STATED WITH HIS OWN MOUTH in regards to the subject!!!
Ummm, yea all except for the FACT that Dr. Dranov has stated that what MM told him did not rise to the level of a REPORTABLE INCIDENT because he did not deem that CREDIBLE EVIDENCE existed of CSA! "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE", which is what "hearing noises" are, UNSUPPORTED BY "DIRECT EVIDENCE" OF ANY KIND is not "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of any kind because there are tons of explanations for the noises that are not SEXUALLY RELATED!!! Dr. Dranov has not said one damn thing which is inconsistent with his actions or recommendation that night!!! You people can keep saying he has until your blue in the face, but that does not make it LEGALLY SO or anything but the bull$hit, made-up, BASELESS gibberish that it is!!!
Especially if you think a child remains in the custody of a monster who is going to continue to sexually abuse the child in the grossest and most evil of ways!!! Yea, you recommend that you get "your ducks in row" rather than call the police??? Add to that that these notions ABJECTLY CONTRADICT what Dr. Dranov has repeatedly said regarding the topic, including again today!, but it is perfectly "moral" and "decent" to libel and "character assassinate" Dr. Dranov despite the fact this attribution directly contradicts what he himself has said regarding the topic??? Some of you people are un-freaking-real regarding the hypocrisy and violation of the "Golden Rule" this suggests (i.e., treat others as YOU would wish to be treated in the same circumstances) - unreal the level of immoral and unprincipled hypocrisy of many of the posters on this board!!!!
While what you assert is certainly the moral high ground and something that we all should ascribe to, not everyone would naturally act that way. This case presented a perfect opportunity to change that mindset. Ideally, we would have raised people's awareness of child abuse and encouraged people to report any suspected incidents. Unfortunately, I fear the exact opposite has quite likely happened. I worry that people see how Mike McQueary's life has been ruined and come to the conclusion that if they witness suspected child abuse, they best look the other way before their lives are destroyed too. That's the really sad part of this whole affair.
Last edited:
It has little to do with what he told Curley and Schultz. I totally agree with that.
The only reason that we are off on this monstrous tangent is that I called a poster on the carpet for claiming that "Dranov was assured that no assault had taken place". I was only refuting that specific statement. I don't know exactly what Dranov believed regarding his conversation with McQueary, but one thing is certain, no one in their right mind could conclude that McQueary's words could be construed as assuring Dranov that an assault hadn't taken place. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because McQueary didn't see penetration is not evidence that penetration didn't happen. You can certainly feel that the fact he didn't see it leaves reasonable doubt that anal intercourse took place, which is what the jury concluded, but you sure as hell can't use it as evidence that the the assault never happen (which for some strange reason seemed to be the track that the OP was originally on). That's the only reason I brought up Dranov's testimony.
Once again, and not attacking you Lar, where is the objective, empirical, or medical evidence that penetration took place? The bullshit of "throwing underwear away" and "burying your face in a pillow" to hide tears and screams is complete bullshit. The agonizing pain and damage could not be hidden, no fing way. I went on a call where a 28 year old woman consented to getting the "butt buster" and ended up in the ER getting 128 stitches to repair the damage done. From consent.
This whole bullshit of "penetration" is a bagatelle.
More laughable bull$hit made-up nonsense from UncleL(i)ar. Dranov has repeated testified that MM told him absolutely nothing about seeing anything despite Dr. Dranov directly inquiring multiple times as to what MM saw - Dranov says MM completely ignored the repeated requests for information relative to what he saw and on each occasion went back to talking about the noises he heard when he first walked in the building despite Dranov attempting to redirect him to the actual question he asked by telling MM he understood all the information he gave him regarding hearing noises.
Again, the only information that MM gave Dranov that could be construed as evidence of any sort were the "noises" MM heard that he attributed to sexual activity. "Sounds" by themselves are considered uncorroberated "Circumstantial Evidence" and by legal definition require a conjectured conclusion as to both source and implication of guilt or innocence (IN FACT, juries are required to be given this instruction by law and not only given this instruction, but also instructed to ignore such testimony if it is just as reasonable to draw conclusions that imply innocence as conjectured conclusions that imply guilt!). You are completely full of $hit that it is incumbent upon Dranov to accept MM's conjectured conclusions or find such Circumstantial Evidence persuasive or reasonable to draw such a conclusion from (i.e., "credible" as stand-alone evidence).
I see your point. However Dranov testified just yesterday that he didn't feel that MM told him was worthy of calling police. That fact indicates to me that MM did not describe what a reasonable person would conclude was a crime (assault, etc). Paterno's GJ testimony was just as muddled on this point ("I don't what you call it?")
The evidence we do have appears to show that if MM saw or heard a sexual assault, he did not relay that fact to anyone at the time.
There isn't any. Never has been. Which is why Sandusky was found not guilty on the charge. That said, the fact that the kid wasn't screaming his lungs out doesn't mean that he wasn't being assaulted. They were in a soapy shower for goodness sake and soap is a damn good lubricant. If this wasn't the first time that Jerry was with the kid, it would be possible for Jerry to have raped him without inflicting a whole lot of damage.
Why is it you consistently fail reading comprehension.? Nowhere have I suggested that it was incumbent upon Dranov to accept McQueary's statements as truthful. The ONLY thing I have said is that Dranov knew that that McQuaery wasn't implying that Sandusky and the kid were horsing around in the shower. Dranov knew McQueary was implying that they were engaged in a sexual act because Dranov testified as such. Whether he believed him or not is an entirely different question. .
To be honest Lar you don't say a whole lot, but you tend to type a lot of words. Nobody knows exactly what MM stated for certain...well except you apparently. There are theories based on testimony based upon decade old memories. You get your panties all twisted like you were in the GD room with MM and Dr. D. Bottom line is the police were not called. We know that with 100% certainty. Why or how is a complete f-ing mystery to be honest. If the the other 3 at PSU did in fact know along with Joe, hopefully the state can actually back up the claim in court rather than with an Op Ed written by a former FBI directory. I have given and still give MM the benefit of the doubt along with the those accussed. It's pretty hard to paint a full picture when only one side has ever yet to really speak on the matter. It's basically like a trial occurred and only the prosecution was allowed to present evidence when it comes to all involved outside of Jerry.
What? Me fail reading comprehnsion???? It has ZERO to do with Dranov finding MM "truthful", you obfuscating tool. Noises are "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" - circumstantial evidence related to "noises" requires each INDIVIDUAL to CONJECTURE regarding the source of the noise and the conclusions drawn as to guilt or innocence based on that CONJECTURE! As stand-alone evidence with no other corroborating evidence, "ear-witness" testimony, as you have chosen to call it, is WORTHLESS, because it is REASONABLE for someone else to draw an entirely different conclusion from the same information that points to innocence rather than guilt (i.e., the noises were generated by horseplay of some kind, not sexual activity) - as a result, it would be eminently REASONABLE for Dr. Dranov, a TRAINED MANDATORY REPORTER UNDER THE CODE, to draw the conclusion that the evidence presented by MM was not sufficiently "credible" or decisive enough to rise to the level of a "Reportable Incident" regardless of whether he thought MM was being sincere in his conjecturing relative to "the noises", or not, which is by the way, the PRECISE advice, and reason for the advice, that Dr. Dranov says he gave to MM - specifically, report it through your HR Protocol as Suspicious Activity in the Workplace as the police do not need to be called based on what you are telling me....
jeez louise, I can't believe I just read that either
one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time . . .
To infer that a 14-15 year old male would not have a "whole lot of damage" - when I would think a 14-15 year old female would have vaginal damage from an adult male - is just...shocking. Let's assume the minor is closer to 10 years old as Mike suggested.
It's just a line of reasoning I simply can't support.
Wow. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This topic is well above lar's pay grade. He really needs to stick to PSU sports and let smarter people like Wendy do the heavy lifting on the sandusky topic.
Because that would weaken the state's case against Spanier.
It was never about "the children".
If my state Attorney General truly cared - they would have directly investigated Second Mile, asked questions there and charged Dr. Raykovitz. They didn't need Mike - they didn't need "Penn State" - to properly bring an accused preferential offender who was culling and abusing specific minors from his grooming charity to trial.
My state Attorney General didn't care.
It was never about "the children".
Self-preservation at what expense? That of a child at the hands of a possible pedophile? Really!?!?!?!!
OMG
Lar usually has some relevant takes - that are worth reading and thinking about (often the interjection of too much hyperbole often distracts from the point.....but that's another issue)
But this post, above, is whacko....and makes it kinda difficult to take his commentary seriously
Sadly, because of what it says about the "moral state" of this Country, I agree with you.
OMG
Lar usually has some relevant takes - that are worth reading and thinking about (often the interjection of too much hyperbole often distracts from the point.....but that's another issue)
But this post, above, is whacko....and makes it kinda difficult to take his commentary seriously
Yea, that's quite the presumption of innocence among a multitude of other Constitutionally-guaranteed "due process rights" tossed right in the hopper right there! Just presume all this as RELEVANT "DIRECT EVIDENCE" of CSA, anal-rape.....you couldn't make this shite up except maybe in Russia or some other small banana-republic dictatorship where citizens have zero rights!
Now you are just making up stuff. There is zero testimony that John was worried about Mike's safety. Zero.
You really want us to believe that John was worried that a naked, unarmed old man was some kind of threat to his strapping 6'5" son? And that old man was so scary that Mike had to leave the premises immediately but not scary enough to call the cops to help the little kid who was still there?
That is effing ridiculous.
Except for the fact that it would have been physically impossible due to the height difference...unless JS was some type of contortionist or the kid was on a stool.
Even if he was able to account for the height difference there's no way the kid would be completely silent or not even have a look of pain/dispair on his face. Compliant victimization doesn't enable people to stop feeling pain.
I have to begin with the thought that he must have personal experience with this situation
