Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.

[pandaczar12]

Except Spanier knew what grooming was in 2001. He's a former family therapist with a well documented interest in sexuality.

If they were totally clueless why would they offer to get him professional help?

Using your hindsight bias, you assume what the professional help was for.

It could have been "professional" HR consultants that were brought in to give a seminar on generational differences and behaviors that could help prevent future false accusations, such as they thought happened in 1998 and they thought was currently happening (in 2001).

 

[Nellie R]

Except Spanier knew what grooming was in 2001. He's a former family therapist with a well documented interest in sexuality.

If they were totally clueless why would they offer to get him professional help?

Asked and answered.

 

[getmyjive11]

In 2001, Spanier was not required to report anything. Now go back and sit on your PL commode.

Of course not because of a poorly written law in 1998. But by not doing it, he put PSU at risk. And look where we are now....

 

[moofafoo]

Of course not because of a poorly written law in 1998. But by not doing it, he put PSU at risk. And look where we are now....

Because of bullshit and Corbett's witch hunt. There's no "we" to you, PL clown. Just like there's no "we" to that idiot you worship, Jacobs the gayru of PL.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Again, the Dr. is just covering his ass. They asked for his subjective opinion and he gave it to him. The sexual sounds part that he testified MM told him about should have been enough to contact police. It is reasonable enough to think that something *may* have occurred.

The sexual sounds part? MM said he heard two slapping sounds through a closed door. Are you saying that is enough to call the cops and accuse someone of molesting a child?

 

[getmyjive11]

The sexual sounds part? MM said he heard two slapping sounds through a closed door. Are you saying that is enough to call the cops and accuse someone of molesting a child?

Just go back and read the Dr's testimony again.

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/09/dr-dranovs-testimony-transcript.html

 

[AvgUser]

Just go back and read the Dr's testimony again.

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/09/dr-dranovs-testimony-transcript.html

Shower water hitting a tile floor makes a slapping sound.
Dranov said that he did not feel that whatever he was told warranted a call to the police.

So, your point is?

 

[getmyjive11]

Shower water hitting a tile floor makes a slapping sound.
Dranov said that he did not feel that whatever he was told warranted a call to the police.

So, your point is?

I'm not sure how you can look at that testimony and feel that MM didn't convey to the Dr. that MM suspected something sexual occurring.

And stop with the water hitting the tile BS.

 

[AvgUser]

A couple engaged in a sexual act that generates audible slapping sounds is surely to exhibit signs of passion, enjoyment and, if the sexual activity is unwilling, distress and despair.

According to your star witness MM, he saw no distress on the youth. No sweaty bodies. Nothing. How could he really see much at all in two or three quick glances. I digress.

Therefore, it is clear that his eyes and ears deceived him. The actions of his Father and Dranov confirm that conclusion.

 

[coveydidnt]

The sexual sounds part? MM said he heard two slapping sounds through a closed door. Are you saying that is enough to call the cops and accuse someone of molesting a child?

If a report was made anonymously to childline? Sure.

 

[coveydidnt]

A couple engaged in a sexual act that generates audible slapping sounds is surely to exhibit signs of passion, enjoyment and, if the sexual activity is unwilling, distress and despair.

According to your star witness MM, he saw no distress on the youth. No sweaty bodies. Nothing. How could he really see much at all in two or three quick glances. I digress.

Therefore, it is clear that his eyes and ears deceived him. The actions of his Father and Dranov confirm that conclusion.

Why then did Dad & DrD advise Mike to talk to Joe about the night when nothing happened?

Do you often call your boss on a weekend and ask to come over Saturday to fill him in on the fact that you saw nothing suspcious or extraordinary Friday nightm

 

[WeR0206]

Why then did Dad & DrD advise Mike to talk to Joe about the night when nothing happened?

Do you often call your boss on a weekend and ask to come over Saturday to fill him in on the fact that you saw nothing suspcious or extraordinary Friday nightm

Bc they were concerned about JS' inappropriate shower behavior? If they wanted to treat it as potential crime then they should have done so by having MM file a damned police report instead of having an off the record convo with some admins ten DAYS later. If they thought the shower was inappropriate then their actions make perfect sense.

 

[getmyjive11]

Bc they were concerned about JS' inappropriate shower behavior? If they wanted to treat it as potential crime then they should have done so by having MM file a damned police report instead of having an off the record convo with some admins ten DAYS later. If they thought the shower was inappropriate then their actions make perfect sense.

Why the worry? If it wasn't criminal, what's the harm? Right?? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

 

[pandaczar12]

Why then did Dad & DrD advise Mike to talk to Joe about the night when nothing happened?

Do you often call your boss on a weekend and ask to come over Saturday to fill him in on the fact that you saw nothing suspcious or extraordinary Friday nightm

It's called CYA... it's what you do if you don't see an actual crime, but see something that makes you uncomfortable and think there is even the slightest of chances there was a crime but didn't see it.

 

[KnightSlayer]

I'm not sure how you can look at that testimony and feel that MM didn't convey to the Dr. that MM suspected something sexual occurring.

And stop with the water hitting the tile BS.

MM heard two slapping noises and his mind immediately went to sex before he saw anything or anyone. What does that say about MM? He never witnessed any sex, let alone illegal sex between a grown man and a child. Knowing that MM, while married, sent dick pics to a college coed shows he has poor judgement. If it is also true that he gambled on sports while playing college ball, this point is further reinforced.

You are also calling Dr Dranov a liar when he said nothing MM told him that night made him feel that the police needed to be called.

 

[getmyjive11]

MM heard two slapping noises and his mind immediately went to sex before he saw anything or anyone. What does that say about MM? He never witnessed any sex, let alone illegal sex between a grown man and a child. Knowing that MM, while married, sent dick pics to a college coed shows he has poor judgement. If it is also true that he gambled on sports while playing college ball, this point is further reinforced.

You are also calling Dr Dranov a liar when he said nothing MM told him that night made him feel that the police needed to be called.

I'm not calling him a liar, I am using his own testimony. He actually said that MM told him about sexual noises. It doesn't matter if it was 2 slaps or 100, MM thought that their was a sexual component to it and relayed that to everyone he spoke to, including Dr. D. And again, that is per their own testimony.

 

[GTACSA]

Many of you are missing the point made by GMJ. The issue is not what Sandusky was doing in the shower but rather what McQueary thought he was doing. The testimony of Mike's father and Dranov make it clear that Mike related his perception of serious sexual conduct between Sandusky and a child.

Mike's dad would not ask if Mike saw insertion unless there was some basis for that question. The basis for the question came from Mike telling his dad that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, standing behind the boy and doing something sexual in nature.

Dranov and Mike's dad testified as to his physical appearance, visibly shaken, voice trembling and quivering, and his hands shaking. Dranov had never seen Mike like this and felt it was shocking.

Add Mike's testimony in both the criminal and civil proceedings and there is more than enough evidence to conclude that Mike thought he had seen a sexual assault. To say that nobody was told anything about Mike believing he had witnessed a sexual assault is pure fiction based upon the existing record.

Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified, and that failure forms the foundation upon which the narrative that Penn State, through the inaction of certain employees, failed in this tragedy, is based.

 

[moofafoo]

Many of you are missing the point made by GMJ. The issue is not what Sandusky was doing in the shower but rather what McQueary thought he was doing. The testimony of Mike's father and Dranov make it clear that Mike related his perception of serious sexual conduct between Sandusky and a child.

Mike's dad would not ask if Mike saw insertion unless there was some basis for that question. The basis for the question came from Mike telling his dad that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, standing behind the boy and doing something sexual in nature.

Dranov and Mike's dad testified as to his physical appearance, visibly shaken, voice trembling and quivering, and his hands shaking. Dranov had never seen Mike like this and felt it was shocking.

Add Mike's testimony in both the criminal and civil proceedings and there is more than enough evidence to conclude that Mike thought he had seen a sexual assault. To say that nobody was told anything about Mike believing he had witnessed a sexual assault is pure fiction based upon the existing record.

Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified, and that failure forms the foundation upon which the narrative that Penn State, through the inaction of certain employees, failed in this tragedy, is based.

You're a cretin.

 

[WyomingLion]

Many of you are missing the point made by GMJ. The issue is not what Sandusky was doing in the shower but rather what McQueary thought he was doing. The testimony of Mike's father and Dranov make it clear that Mike related his perception of serious sexual conduct between Sandusky and a child.

Mike's dad would not ask if Mike saw insertion unless there was some basis for that question. The basis for the question came from Mike telling his dad that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, standing behind the boy and doing something sexual in nature.

Dranov and Mike's dad testified as to his physical appearance, visibly shaken, voice trembling and quivering, and his hands shaking. Dranov had never seen Mike like this and felt it was shocking.

Add Mike's testimony in both the criminal and civil proceedings and there is more than enough evidence to conclude that Mike thought he had seen a sexual assault. To say that nobody was told anything about Mike believing he had witnessed a sexual assault is pure fiction based upon the existing record.

Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified, and that failure forms the foundation upon which the narrative that Penn State, through the inaction of certain employees, failed in this tragedy, is based.

You are selectively choosing who should be blamed. "Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified." If Dranov and Dad thought a crime had been committed THEY should have called the police. However, they testified they did not believe the incident rose to that level. MM must not have conveyed his message very well for them to NOT call the police, at least not as well as some contend. "Through the inaction of certain employees failed in this tragedy." How about through the in action of Dranov, Dad, and most of all MM? Oops. Doesn't fit the narrative.... so never mind. Even if MM conveyed an assault that does not mean the same message was conveyed to others despite your attempts to do so. Also, I would like to know what conversations between Dr D, Dad, and MM in the time until the C/C interview. Maybe a discussion on how this could be a career killer if proven false and so watered down ?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

You are selectively choosing who should be blamed. "Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified." If Dranov and Dad thought a crime had been committed THEY should have called the police. However, they testified they did not believe the incident rose to that level. MM must not have conveyed his message very well for them to NOT call the police, at least not as well as some contend. "Through the inaction of certain employees failed in this tragedy." How about through the in action of Dranov, Dad, and most of all MM? Oops. Doesn't fit the narrative.... so never mind. Even if MM conveyed an assault that does not mean the same message was conveyed to others despite your attempts to do so.

bottom line (and GTA hates this because of where he gets his paychecks)

according to the LAW AT THE TIME, only one person was required to report this incident to CYS/Police. and the report made it to his desk. and he ignored it. buried it. and he was never charged with a crime.

 

[coveydidnt]

MM heard two slapping noises and his mind immediately went to sex before he saw anything or anyone. What does that say about MM? He never witnessed any sex, let alone illegal sex between a grown man and a child. Knowing that MM, while married, sent dick pics to a college coed shows he has poor judgement. If it is also true that he gambled on sports while playing college ball, this point is further reinforced.

You are also calling Dr Dranov a liar when he said nothing MM told him that night made him feel that the police needed to be called.

I guess. Why hasn't anyone asked DrD why he went over at all? If I see a spider I might freak out. I'm a grown ass person though & don't call my Dad, but especially not my Dad's friend. Regardless, my Dad's doctor friend is not going to rush over for no reason, or if the reason is that I saw a spider & me & Dad don't know what to do.

My Dad's doctor friend would say if its a spider, just kill it & go to bed. Grow up!

 

[WeR0206]

I guess. Why hasn't anyone asked DrD why he went over at all? If I see a spider I might freak out. I'm a grown ass person though & don't call my Dad, but especially not my Dad's friend. Regardless, my Dad's doctor friend is not going to rush over for no reason, or if the reason is that I saw a spider & me & Dad don't know what to do.

My Dad's doctor friend would say if its a spider, just kill it & go to bed. Grow up!

Um, perhaps because MM's "story" was vague and full of assumptions and because of that they wanted to confer with someone who was trained in reporting suspected child abuse, what were the reporting thresholds, etc.? They certainly didn't need Dr. D to tell them that if MM thought a crime against a kid had been committed that he should call UPPD ASAP. IOW since MM's report was mired in "grey area" stuff they felt they needed an expert opinion??

 

[KnightSlayer]

I'm not calling him a liar, I am using his own testimony. He actually said that MM told him about sexual noises. It doesn't matter if it was 2 slaps or 100, MM thought that their was a sexual component to it and relayed that to everyone he spoke to, including Dr. D. And again, that is per their own testimony.

Again, that is a reflection of MM. He heard 2 slapping sounds and his mind said sex. That sound could literally been made by any of 100 different scenarios. That is why Dranov kept asking him what he saw. In his own testimony, Dranov didn't feel that anything MM said warranted a call to the police. Not sure how you can just dismiss that.

 

[rmb297]

Sorry, but you simply saying that Paterno's testimony is not reliable does not make it so. Of course you think it was merely just a mistake because the truth blows up your narrative.

I'm not merely saying so -- I'm basing it on the information he gave in TWO interviews to the OAG investigators that were full of errors. So, during his grand jury testimony, Joe stammers around and mumbles something barely intelligible "it was a sexual nature" and the OAG uses it to bolster the most unreliable witness ever.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the OAG can't produce a recording of this testimony to see what Joe actually said? Schultz's team pointed out obvious errors in the transcription of his testimony and all they've heard from the OAG is crickets.

 

[rmb297]

I think I get it now. Nothing happened that night and MM never told anyone that something
happened including Paterno. Then Paterno consulted his handbook and called Curley and Spanier to
report nothing happened. Then they had a meeting with MM to discuss nothing.
Then they might have taken some keys from Sandusky over nothing if in fact
he ever had keys. Then 10 years later when testifying before a GJ, MM and Paterno
forgot that nothing happened and said something sexual happened. Then the media,
Governor, BOT, etc conspired to get rid of Paterno and Spanier and smear their names. Also Sandusky was unjustly prosecuted by a corrupt court system for doing nothing to over 30 other kids. While this was going on, TSM was laundering money for crooked farmers which somehow is related to this story.

This is utter nonsense. BYE.

 

[getmyjive11]

I'm not merely saying so -- I'm basing it on the information he gave in TWO interviews to the OAG investigators that wer righte full of errors. So, during his grand jury testimony, Joe stammers around and mumbles something barely intelligible "it was a sexual nature" and the OAG uses it to bolster the most unreliable witness ever.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the OAG can't produce a recording of this testimony to see what Joe actually said? Schultz's team pointed out obvious errors in the transcription of his testimony and all they've heard from the OAG is crickets.

So why did he say it Ray? Why did he even mention "it was a sexual nature"? Seems incredibly odd to just throw that in there if it didn't happen.

Oh right, he never said it, the Commonwealth just inserted it in there to screw everyone at PSU over. Right?

 

[rmb297]

Many of you are missing the point made by GMJ. The issue is not what Sandusky was doing in the shower but rather what McQueary thought he was doing. The testimony of Mike's father and Dranov make it clear that Mike related his perception of serious sexual conduct between Sandusky and a child.

Mike's dad would not ask if Mike saw insertion unless there was some basis for that question. The basis for the question came from Mike telling his dad that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy, standing behind the boy and doing something sexual in nature.

Dranov and Mike's dad testified as to his physical appearance, visibly shaken, voice trembling and quivering, and his hands shaking. Dranov had never seen Mike like this and felt it was shocking.

Add Mike's testimony in both the criminal and civil proceedings and there is more than enough evidence to conclude that Mike thought he had seen a sexual assault. To say that nobody was told anything about Mike believing he had witnessed a sexual assault is pure fiction based upon the existing record.

Somewhere along the line the police should have been notified, and that failure forms the foundation upon which the narrative that Penn State, through the inaction of certain employees, failed in this tragedy, is based.

NO ONE has ever CORROBORATED Mike's account of the story with any specific details of what they were told. The closest was John McQueary who said that Mike said "you didn't need to be a rocket scientist" to know what was going on.

Do you know what that was? It was a NON-ADMISSION by John McQueary of what he was told by Mike -- as coached to do so by the prosecutors to avoid committing perjury under oath.

 

[rmb297]

So why did he say it Ray? Why did he even mention "it was a sexual nature"? Seems incredibly odd to just throw that in there if it didn't happen.

Oh right, he never said it, the Commonwealth just inserted it in there to screw everyone at PSU over. Right?

It is quite possible that Joe said "WAS IT a sexual nature?" However, we don't know if the words were transposed or not without hearing the tape.

Look at his testimony. Joe is openly questioning what it was he was told that night. In ten minutes of testimony, Joe used the following phrases:

I'm not sure ...as I said, I'm not sure... I'm not sure what the term...I'm not sure exactly... I don't know...I'm not sure exactly...I didn't push Mike to describe exactly...I don't know whether... I can't be precise...I don't know whether... I'm not sure when...I believe I did it...I don't know...I don't remember...

The evidence clearly shows that Joe Paterno was a cancer stricken 84 year old man who had only a vague memory of an incident the occurred ten years earlier. Most experts on memory would agree on that -- but I'm sure the Commonwealth could find one who wouldnt' (much in the same manner that they found a counselor to refute the findings of a licensed psychologist back in 1998).

BTW, why does the transcript say that Schultz made a decision to report the 2001 incident because of what happened in 2003? Doesn't that seem like a transcription error?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

So why did he say it Ray? Why did he even mention "it was a sexual nature"? Seems incredibly odd to just throw that in there if it didn't happen.
Oh right, he never said it, the Commonwealth just inserted it in there to screw everyone at PSU over. Right?

 

[bjf1991]

I'm not merely saying so -- I'm basing it on the information he gave in TWO interviews to the OAG investigators that were full of errors. So, during his grand jury testimony, Joe stammers around and mumbles something barely intelligible "it was a sexual nature" and the OAG uses it to bolster the most unreliable witness ever.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the OAG can't produce a recording of this testimony to see what Joe actually said? Schultz's team pointed out obvious errors in the transcription of his testimony and all they've heard from the OAG is crickets.

BOOM!!!!!! And GMJ takes another boot to the nuts!!!!!
(Or, at least to where his nuts used to be)

 

[getmyjive11]

It is quite possible that Joe said "WAS IT a sexual nature?" However, we don't know if the words were transposed or not without hearing the tape.

The only reason you say that is because you hope that is the case. It also totally ignores his fondling comment earlier in his testimony. It is clear that MM told him Sandusky was touching the boy inappropriately. That's not horseplay. That's not snapping towels and sliding across the floor. That's a man touching a boy in an illegal way. Unless you can think of a way that a man can touch a boy in a shower inappropriately that can not at least be suspected to be illegal. I cannot.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

BOOM!!!!!! And GMJ takes another boot to the nuts!!!!!
(Or, at least to where his nuts used to be)

 

[rmb297]

The only reason you say that is because you hope that is the case. It also totally ignores his fondling comment earlier in his testimony. It is clear that MM told him Sandusky was touching the boy inappropriately. That's not horseplay. That's not snapping towels and sliding across the floor. That's a man touching a boy in an illegal way. Unless you can think of a way that a man can touch a boy in a shower inappropriately that can not at least be suspected to be illegal. I cannot.

Except that MIKE doesn't back that up because he said he didn't give Joe any details.

Mike stated under oath that he "couldn't see Sandusky's actual hands." So, genius, how was it the Joe Paterno was told (BY MIKE) that there was fondling going on? Unless you believe that fondling doesn't involve using hands!!!

"Fondling" is an ERROR or, if you will, Joe not remembering what he was told and filling in the blanks on his own.

This case has been made on taking pieces of evidence in isolation -- and suppressing the other pieces that fill in the blanks. For example, where is the document of showing what Schultz asked Harmon on February 12th. It surely exists because it was referenced in the Freeh Report. Otherwise, why was Harmon sending an email about the 1998 file without anyone prompting him to do so?

Why is it that Curley was supposed to meet with Sandusky on Friday, February 16th, but that meeting didn't take place? Could it be that PSU was TOLD to back away from talking to anyone until CYS decided what they were going to do with PSU's report? That seems very likely based on what CYS did in 1998.

And why wouldn't Schultz follow Courtney's instruction to report the incident? Courtney knew that PSU had 48 hours to report it -- which coincides with February 12th.

So, when you look at the evidence in total, what is more likely. On February 12th, Schultz told no one except Curley and Spanier about the incident -- AND Harmon took the initiative to send tell him the 1998 file was in the archive.

OR

Following advice of Counsel, Schultz told Harmon check on the past investigation and then to contact CYS to report the latest incident, then Curley and Schultz briefed Spanier on the incident.

 

[getmyjive11]

Except that MIKE doesn't back that up because he said he didn't give Joe any details.

Mike stated under oath that he "couldn't see Sandusky's actual hands." So, genius, how was it the Joe Paterno was told (BY MIKE) that there was fondling going on? Unless you believe that fondling doesn't involve using hands!!!

"Fondling" is an ERROR or, if you will, Joe not remembering what he was told and filling in the blanks on his own.

Depends whether you think that "fondling" equates to going into detail. I don't. Fondling is a general term as is "a sexual nature."

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Depends whether you think that "fondling" equates to going into detail. I don't. Fondling is a general term as is "a sexual nature."

 

[rmb297]

Depends whether you think that "fondling" equates to going into detail. I don't. Fondling is a general term as is "a sexual nature."

BYE.

 

[coveydidnt]

It is quite possible that Joe said "WAS IT a sexual nature?" However, we don't know if the words were transposed or not without hearing the tape.

It's equally possible Joe said there were pink elephants dancing on the ceiling. However, we do have a transcript, which indicates he said nothing about pink elephants. It also says he didn't ask WAS IT? as a question.

Why is it this one line in this one transcript that's wrong? You frequently in your posts refer to other transcripts as evidence. You never point out the disclaimer that this "evidence" is only true if, and only, if the transcript is accurate. You never complain that audio of these other transcripts has not been released.

This is because you have pre-determined your conclusions, and work backwords. To be credible, you must apply the same rules to all evidence.

 

[Nellie R]

Using your hindsight bias, you assume what the professional help was for.

It could have been "professional" HR consultants that were brought in to give a seminar on generational differences and behaviors that could help prevent future false accusations, such as they thought happened in 1998 and they thought was currently happening (in 2001).

It's equally possible Joe said there were pink elephants dancing on the ceiling. However, we do have a transcript, which indicates he said nothing about pink elephants. It also says he didn't ask WAS IT? as a question.

Why is it this one line in this one transcript that's wrong? You frequently in your posts refer to other transcripts as evidence. You never point out the disclaimer that this "evidence" is only true if, and only, if the transcript is accurate. You never complain that audio of these other transcripts has not been released.

This is because you have pre-determined your conclusions, and work backwords. To be credible, you must apply the same rules to all evidence.

What part of "It's possible" , "It could have been", etc, do you not understand? In your world, you get to use qualifying language and no one else does?

 

[GTACSA]

NO ONE has ever CORROBORATED Mike's account of the story with any specific details of what they were told. The closest was John McQueary who said that Mike said "you didn't need to be a rocket scientist" to know what was going on.

Do you know what that was? It was a NON-ADMISSION by John McQueary of what he was told by Mike -- as coached to do so by the prosecutors to avoid committing perjury under oath.

I think you need to read John's testimony again. When his son told him Sandusky was behind the boy in the shower doing something sexual in nature, that is corroboration of Mike's testimony. John asked Mike if he saw penetration and was told no.

I don't know what happened in that shower but I do know that testimony from John and Dranov corroborate Mike's testimony. To say otherwise is disingenuous.