Simple. Law enforcement, DA, CYS and DPW were all aware of 1998. Not even so much as a charge of a crime was levied. So, when a similar event happens, you look to what was done before. Human Nature.
Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
Simple. Law enforcement, DA, CYS and DPW were all aware of 1998. Not even so much as a charge of a crime was levied. So, when a similar event happens, you look to what was done before. Human Nature.
Okay? So what's your point? That Dr. D failed? I knew that already. That doesn't mean that all of their testimonies were false.
Dukie so who was lying, your dad or Mike? Your dad testified Mike told him 2 times minutes after he saw nothing more than Jerry in the shower with the kid and nothing else.
Can you supply a screenshot or link? Need more context; Date of the note etc. It could be totally unrelated to anything Sandusky. A financial report from one of the departments for instance.
Then how do you explain the contradictions in Mike's PMA vs PSU deposition and his trial testimony?
You are not being intellectually honest. He didn't see penetration but he heard sex sounds and believed that what he witnessed was an event that was sexual in nature. When are you all going to realize that it doesn't matter if Sandusky anally raped the kid or not, he still could have done other illegal acts. And MM thought that he was doing illegal sexual acts and conveyed that to Paterno, his father and the Dr per their testimony.
Dranov's statements at the Whistleblower trial contradicts this statement 100%
My point is that his testimony doesn't match his actions. If MM had told him what he says he told him, then he broke the law. Way too many inconsistencies to believe that we know all of the facts. its a he said, she said situation....but the behaviors in 2001 favor Curley and Schultz' version.
reasonable people may disagree. I am done with the subject for now.
They do not. His opinion does not matter, what matters is what MM told him. Nothing changed in that aspect.
Completely off topic, but it just made me think of this. TH, I wonder what that means... start at around the 9:00 mark.
You stated that that his father and Dranov knew Sandusky was "doing illegal sexual acts". I do not have the testimony in front of me, but i will paraphrase and tell you that Dranov is certainly on record as saying that what he heard from McQ did not warrant a call to authorities (aka police). That directly conflicts with your statement that they knew Sandusky was doing something illegal.
It doesn't get any more straight-forward, unambiguous and clear-cut as that.
He knew that MM was distraught and was talking about sexual sounds from Sandusky and a boy in a shower. I disagree with him or anyone else who would say that such an encounter does not need to be reported.
Maybe you do disagree. That wasn't my point. The fact is that Dranov stated in court testimony that he did not beleve that night that a crime had been committed or that authorities needed to be called. You stated the complete opposite.
That's his opinion. That just change the fact that MM told him about sex sounds, that he told Paterno about something of a sexual nature occurring or that he conveyed the same thing to C&S (as did Paterno). You are taking the opinion of someone who said that he couldn't get the full story from the witness and trying to use that to invalidate the testimony of someone who got more of the story. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.
Wait, you are the one not making sense.
MMcQ spoke to two people 15 minute after the event he witnessed. Neither felt that what they learned required a call to police They stated that. That is fact. You are the one warping words to mean something different.
I'm not warping anything. MM was too distraught to talk about the incident in detail, but he did tell them that there was Sandusky and a boy in a shower and their were sexual sounds. I don't agree with the Dr's opinion that police didn't have to be contacted.
But you said he knew something illegal was happening. He did no know that. If he did, then he is as guilty as you think Curley and Schultz are. It only strengthens the argument that something smells in this whole case and it begins in Harrisburg.
The only thing I have said that is close to that is that no one's actions, including Mike, in 2001 were indicative of Mike witnessing what he claimed 10 years later.
JVP's testimony being unreliable has nothing to do with that.
He couldn't even provide the color of the boy's hair.
What that means is the witness heard more than what he saw.
So you finally agree that the OAG's version of MM's testimony is an out right lie!! OAG states MM says he saw SODOMY....you now say that..."There are many other illegal sexual acts that Sandusky could do to the boy without anal rape..."
So if the key statement by MM according to the OAG is a Fabracated lie....the rest of the "Story" must also be a LIE!!!
Took you long enough to admit the truth!
Dranov has & had no choice but to either state that or plead the fifth. We cannot really determine anything from his testimony.
Why did Dranov not have a choice? Dranov has been consistent with his actions and his words.
He was a mandatory reporter. He didnt report when he heard from Mike.
He cannot now say that he should have reported without getting himself in trouble.
This is all obvious to anyone who's even slightly followed this case or any other. It does not accuse perjury, just the simple truth that if Dr D testified any other way, he'd personally be in trouble. That tends to diminish the value of such a witnesses' testimony.
Dranov was not a mandated reporter in that instance.
It's all really simple. MM saw Sandusky and a kid in a shower. That freaked him out (as it should have). He assumed bad things were going on simply due to context (fair assumption) even though he himself didn't witness any bad things.
When you look at the actions of everyone involved, that's the only explanation of how it went down that night. You take away the "you know what" inclusion in the presentment, then all this goes a different direction.
It's all really simple. MM saw Sandusky and a kid in a shower. That freaked him out (as it should have). He assumed bad things were going on simply due to context (fair assumption) even though he himself didn't witness any bad things.
When you look at the actions of everyone involved, that's the only explanation of how it went down that night. You take away the "you know what" inclusion in the presentment, then all this goes a different direction.
"Doll" - you're cute - I haven't heard that term in at least 25 years.
Ok, I'll indulge you.
What conspiracy? Point out where I've ever said there was a "conspiracy". A LOT of unanswered questions from not only Second Mile, but local child welfare professionals and a LOT of unethical behavior coming from Franky "Fap" Fina and his porn-addled gunslinger pals in the OAG. Most of the "rubes" on this board are well aware of my position and my complaints, and to whom I've taken them to.
Which includes not only your hero Louis Freeh, but the Washington Post AND the NYT, among scores of others.
You don't pay much attention do you?
If you're going to troll, at the very least - step up your game - instead of indulging yourself on this board. Does Kekst know how poorly you are doing?
I hate to say this, but I miss CR66 - at least he came prepared with some quality content.
Ok, I'll indulge you.
What conspiracy? Point out where I've ever said there was a "conspiracy". A LOT of unanswered questions from not only Second Mile, but local child welfare professionals and a LOT of unethical behavior coming from Franky "Fap" Fina and his porn-addled gunslinger pals in the OAG. Most of the "rubes" on this board are well aware of my position and my complaints, and to whom I've taken them to.
Which includes not only your hero Louis Freeh, but the Washington Post AND the NYT, among scores of others.
You don't pay much attention do you?
If you're going to troll, at the very least - step up your game - instead of indulging yourself on this board. Does Kekst know how poorly you are doing?
I hate to say this, but I miss CR66 - at least he came prepared with some quality content.
Maybe. It was disclosed in the civil suit that Dranov was in his office when he got the call. When the "real" V2 comes forward(cough), that could come into play in a civil suit.
There is no distinction of substance between the two.
The notion that the response of a witness to reported activity defines whether the activity occurred is nonsense. The reaction can be used as an argument to support a position but it doesn't in and of itself define the observed activity.
A nuanced example would be that a father was told by his son that he observed a neighbor beating his wife. The father, for whatever reasons, does not call the police. The father's response does not define the neighbor's actions.
Perhaps you could tell us why you conclude that Joe's testimony was unreliable?
