Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.

[coveydidnt]

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.

Far from the "only explanation."

Equally plausible: Regardless of what Dad & Dr.D may have believed actually happened, by the time they were told (whatever) they knew there was no immediate threat & whatever happened was over. They decided to report to Penn State, through Joe the next day and let them carry the ball forward.

In no way does that indicate what Mike observed, what he told them, or what they might have believed. They just advised him that PSU could take it from there, tomorrow. Joe also seemed to agree that was an ok approach.

 

[bjf1991]

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?

This thread (thank you GTASCA.....and congratulations!) has just eclipsed the all-time InterWebs record for the highest density of STOOPID in one thread!!

 

[AvgUser]

He was a mandatory reporter.

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's actions and statements have been consistent. He had nor has no reason to lie. I do not believe he is perpetuating his own lie either. He was not a mandated reporter in this situation.

What is also obvious to anyone who has followed this case is that 6-10 people whom Mike McQ spoke to about what he 'witnessed' all acted and behaved similarly. None thought a crime had been committed based upon what Mike told them. None were evidently told anything that indicated authorities needed to be contacted immediately. The evidence shows the actions of 6-10 versus 1. Statistically speaking...the answer is obvious

 

[Osprey Lion]

This thread (thank you GTASCA.....and congratulations!) has just eclipsed the all-time InterWebs record for the highest density of STOOPID in one thread!!

If there are people dumber and more childish than you and Moofafoo who frequent this board,
I have yet to come across their messages. You two remind me of Beavis and Butthead only more
infantile..

 

[bjf1991]

If there are people dumber and more childish than you and Moofafoo who frequent this board,
have yet to come across their messages. You two remind me of Beavis and Butthead only more
infantile..

Sorry....I didn't list you among the "credits"......
It wasn't meant as a slight.....I had assumed that your contributions were obvious......
But, just to be clear, I know that both you and GMJ have made Kudo-worthy contributions to the record.


In the meantime, Mr/Mrs/Miss "OspreyLion", when I start to give a damn about the personal opinions of some cowardly, spineless, anonymous message board poster.......who has sooo much conviction in his/her/its "takes" that he/she/it won't even put his/her/its name to it........I'll let you know.

 

[getmyjive11]

What that means is the witness heard more than what he saw.

Again, so what? I'm not calling for a conviction here, I'm calling for an investigation.

 

[getmyjive11]

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!

No, I'm not saying he lied. He didn't see penetration. It really doesn't matter if he saw a lot or a little, we are talking in the context of him witnessing enough to where police should have been contacted. Take whatever version you want of MM's story and combine that with the testimonies of Paterno, MM's father and Dr D., and it is pretty clear that police should have been contacted.

 

[getmyjive11]

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.

Except that MM told or strongly implied (in the case of Dr. D and his father) that something sexual was going on to everyone he talked to.

 

[LundyPSU]

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?

Talk about nonsense. The father's response may not define the neighbor's actions, but it does not make the son's statements true. Especially if we are talking about the son's statements 10 years after the observed incident.

As for JVP, anyone paying attention for the past 10 years can answer that.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No, I'm not saying he lied. He didn't see penetration. It really doesn't matter if he saw a lot or a little, we are talking in the context of him witnessing enough to where police should have been contacted. Take whatever version you want of MM's story and combine that with the testimonies of Paterno, MM's father and Dr D., and it is pretty clear that police should have been contacted.

The kicker in all of this is some will believe they know what MM saw or didn't see no matter what. I remember him in the chats the days following and people were acting like the sky was gonna fall on PSU. I said...why, he's retired. Little did I know how jacked up Jerry was and want a $h!tstorm he would cause. Either way some here will believe MM saw nothing or possibly something, but nobodies mind will change. The actions of those involved is very strange for certain, but I do love how emphatic a few are with their proclamations on this site about everything involved. You would swear a few more here were in the lockerroom that night.

 

[elvis63]

That's a fair take lajolla.

 

[LundyPSU]

The kicker in all of this is some will believe they know what MM saw or didn't see no matter what. I remember him in the chats the days following and people were acting like the sky was gonna fall on PSU. I said...why, he's retired. Little did I know how jacked up Jerry was and want a $h!tstorm he would cause. Either way some here will believe MM saw nothing or possibly something, but nobodies mind will change. The actions of those involved is very strange for certain, but I do love how emphatic a few are with their proclamations on this site about everything involved. You would swear a few more here were in the lockerroom that night.

Weren't these chats years later? I recall it was 2004-2006, or at least that is how it has been reported.

 

[moofafoo]

All of this silly, homespun bullshit about Joe knew, and knew as far back as 1976 is made up crapola. These pionchas that tout this shit are here only to stir the pot, because they pretty much are done everywhere else.

All of a sudden, 45 years later, Joe has a conscience attack and reports what he has hidden for decades. It makes no sense and is bullshit.

This is a big pile of shit that the BoT, NCAA and BigTen have stepped into and what Judges, politicians and others are trying to avoid doing the same. They are all hoping the Feds make this all go away. That is why you have seen no C/S & S trials, and are not likely to. The OAG is full of shit with their "strong cases".

 

[Osprey Lion]

Sorry....I didn't list you among the "credits"......
It wasn't meant as a slight.....I had assumed that your contributions were obvious......
But, just to be clear, I know that both you and GMJ have made Kudo-worthy contributions to the record.


In the meantime, Mr/Mrs/Miss "OspreyLion", when I start to give a damn about the personal opinions of some cowardly, spineless, anonymous message board poster.......who has sooo much conviction in his/her/its "takes" that he/she/it won't even put his/her/its name to it........I'll let you know.

Is your name bjf1991? You are such a dolt.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Weren't these chats years later? I recall it was 2004-2006, or at least that is how it has been reported.

It was right around then...right around the time he picked up the RC title or was promoted to WR coach IIRC. He came to the chats one or twice every week or two and it had never been a subject at all and one night I came in and people were talking like it was the end of the program. I remember thinking Jerry was retired...how in the hell did he do anything that would bring down the program. Not it was never made clear to most what JS did as that site had a tight little clique at the time. MtNitt and dukie both frequented those chats...sg as well in addition to the guys on Scout.

 

[coveydidnt]

What is also obvious to anyone who has followed this case is that 6-10 people whom Mike McQ spoke to about what he 'witnessed' all acted and behaved similarly. None thought a crime had been committed based upon what Mike told them. None were evidently told anything that indicated authorities needed to be contacted immediately. The evidence shows the actions of 6-10 versus 1. Statistically speaking...the answer is obvious

Except that a jury of 12, with no ulterior motives unanimously determined there were crimes that night. They heard from Mike and his dad & DrD. Yes. The answer is obvious. Based solely on what Mike, Dad, & others said about that night, they determined that crimes were comitted - thus, police should have been notified.

I don't even know why you argue this. If police HAD been called instead of dropping the mess on Joe, none of the resulting fallout would have ever happened.

 

[getmyjive11]

The kicker in all of this is some will believe they know what MM saw or didn't see no matter what. I remember him in the chats the days following and people were acting like the sky was gonna fall on PSU. I said...why, he's retired. Little did I know how jacked up Jerry was and want a $h!tstorm he would cause. Either way some here will believe MM saw nothing or possibly something, but nobodies mind will change. The actions of those involved is very strange for certain, but I do love how emphatic a few are with their proclamations on this site about everything involved. You would swear a few more here were in the lockerroom that night.

Exactly right. No one knows exactly what happened or what MM saw. People swearing up and down that MM saw nothing... how do you know? Hell, even Paterno, Dr. D and MM's father have no idea exactly what he saw. All we can do is take the testimony of these men at face value and if you do that, the reasonable conclusion is that MM thought something of a sexual nature occurred. In that case, a reasonable response would be to contact police. Going up the chain of command is fine as long as the police ultimately get informed. I'm not saying that the blame was all on any one of those four men exclusively if it did not happen, but there is still a level of failure that it didn't. When you take the approach of making this a group effort, you have to take your lumps when the group fails.

The group ultimately failed.

 

[bjf1991]

Is your name bjf1991? You are such a dolt.

Barry Fenchak
596 Devonshire Drive, State College


Which - though it may not fit into a "screen name"......has been posted on this site 100's of times (and, would be safe to say, is no surprise to 99% of the regular posters on this board).



You anonymous coward.

Try again......but - for God's sake - don't EVER actually have the balls and the integrity to stand behind your own bloviations.

Chicken-shit Coward.

 

[GTACSA]

Talk about nonsense. The father's response may not define the neighbor's actions, but it does not make the son's statements true. Especially if we are talking about the son's statements 10 years after the observed incident.

As for JVP, anyone paying attention for the past 10 years can answer that.

The father's response may not define the neighbor's actions, but it does not make the son's statements true.

Absolutely correct; the response can not be used to define whether the neighbors actions occurred or did not occur; notwithstanding the attempt of many on this board to try and pound that square peg into a round hole.

I'm curious as to your take on Joe's testimony being unreliable in your mind. Hypothetically, If Joe had been in litigation with Penn State over the terms of a severance package which had been negotiated in 2001, would you automatically conclude that his testimony on that issue would be unreliable? I assume your answer is yes and that would in my mind be unfair to Joe; or are there other factors other than age and lapse of time which you feel bear on his reliability?

 

[Obliviax]

Exactly right. No one knows exactly what happened or what MM saw. People swearing up and down that MM saw nothing... how do you know? Hell, even Paterno, Dr. D and MM's father have no idea exactly what he saw. All we can do is take the testimony of these men at face value and if you do that, the reasonable conclusion is that MM thought something of a sexual nature occurred. In that case, a reasonable response would be to contact police. Going up the chain of command is fine as long as the police ultimately get informed. I'm not saying that the blame was all on any one of those four men exclusively if it did not happen, but there is still a level of failure that it didn't. When you take the approach of making this a group effort, you have to take your lumps when the group fails.

The group ultimately failed.

I agree...up until your last line. If nobody knows what MM saw, perhaps even him, how can you get a conviction in a legal system where the accuser has to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[wensilver]

Agreed.

Let me ask - I have been in social conversations regarding a high profile, influential and wealthy individual in a well heeled community outside of Philadelphia.

Topics included his social events, which included jokes about BYOB.

We are not referring to booze.

I've only met the subject of the conversation once and have no first hand knowledge or facts.

Do I call the police?

The kicker in all of this is some will believe they know what MM saw or didn't see no matter what. I remember him in the chats the days following and people were acting like the sky was gonna fall on PSU. I said...why, he's retired. Little did I know how jacked up Jerry was and want a $h!tstorm he would cause. Either way some here will believe MM saw nothing or possibly something, but nobodies mind will change. The actions of those involved is very strange for certain, but I do love how emphatic a few are with their proclamations on this site about everything involved. You would swear a few more here were in the lockerroom that night.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[getmyjive11]

I agree...up until your last line. If nobody knows what MM saw, perhaps even him, how can you get a conviction in a legal system where the accuser has to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt?

Again, I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm talking about having the police contacted. The group failed in that the information never got to the police so that they could investigate and determine if there was a crime.

 

[getmyjive11]

View embedded media

And after he says that he says that "it was a sexual act or way over the line."

 

[coveydidnt]

Agreed.

Let me ask - I have been in social conversations regarding a high profile, influential and wealthy individual in a well heeled community outside of Philadelphia.

Topics included his social events, which included jokes about BYOB.

We are not referring to booze.

I've only met the subject of the conversation once and have no first hand knowledge or facts.

Do I call the police?

Certainly that's a better option than posting on a message board about it.

Step one is to avoid being social with anyone who jokes about BYOB. I don't see how I could ever be in the same room with them after such a joke, let alone be social.

 

[Obliviax]

Again, I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm talking about having the police contacted. The group failed in that the information never got to the police so that they could investigate and determine if there was a crime.

yeah....easy to say in hindsight though. At that time, there was 98 and 01 and not a lot of other people claiming anything....in 11/12/13, with dozens of people then coming forward, a lot easier. Especially when you know the publicity of the charges would bring down (what was thought to be) a leading charitable organization.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Agreed.

Let me ask - I have been in social conversations regarding a high profile, influential and wealthy individual in a well heeled community outside of Philadelphia.

Topics included his social events, which included jokes about BYOB.

We are not referring to booze.

I've only met the subject of the conversation once and have no first hand knowledge or facts.

Do I call the police?

It depends on how strongly you trust the individuals you talked to I guess. Did they work for you or are they your child or family friend?

 

[ChiTownLion]

And after he says that he says that "it was a sexual act or way over the line."

"and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

 

[TenerHallTerror]

"and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

all due respect, but you're presenting Mike's words as he wrote them

if you want to get ANYWHERE on this discussion, you need to remove any modifiers and/or terms of uncertainty

 

[Obliviax]

"and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

Great post, ChiTown, as always. I can really see the problem these guys had. I don't feel Schultz, specifically, did enough. If for no other reason, he should have had more documentation (even if he called someone outside of PSU besides TSM)...but is that a criminal issue?

Regardless, certainly nothing to accuse Paterno or football or the football program over.

 

[getmyjive11]

"and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

That just further suggests that they should have went to police because he suspected sexual or inappropriate acts with a boy that went "way over the line."

 

[moofafoo]

That just further suggests that they should have went to police because he suspected sexual or inappropriate acts with a boy that went "way over the line."

The usual total bullshit. Who should've called the police and why?

 

[getmyjive11]

Great post, ChiTown, as always. I can really see the problem these guys had. I don't feel Schultz, specifically, did enough. If for no other reason, he should have had more documentation (even if he called someone outside of PSU besides TSM)...but is that a criminal issue?

Regardless, certainly nothing to accuse Paterno or football or the football program over.

Maybe it is criminal, maybe it isn't, but not going to police sure as hell put Penn State in a position to be inflicted great harm. I'm not sure how many talk about the fiduciary duties of the BOT (which is a valid discussion) and don't say one word about CSS's carelessness.

 

[getmyjive11]

The usual total bullshit. Who should've called the police and why?

Do I have to explain the situation to you every time you get a new screen name?

 

[AvgUser]

Again, I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm talking about having the police contacted. The group failed in that the information never got to the police so that they could investigate and determine if there was a crime.

The thing is, Dranov has stated that what he heard DID NOT WARRANT a call to authorities.

Everyone who Mike spoke to evidently concluded the same. There was not yet a reason given to call authorities. That is a subjective judgement and if the witness was ashamed, embarrassed or too tongue-tied to properly communicate what he saw or what he heard, then you can't fault the 'down-the-lane' parties for not acting how you think was appropriate.

I'm not sure how and why you do not understand that point.

 

[moofafoo]

Do I have to explain the situation to you every time you get a new screen name?

You and the other morons are obsessed with pinning something, anything on Joe that isn't there. Go "see" your mom.

 

[Obliviax]

You and the other morons are obsessed with pinning something, anything on Joe that isn't there. Go "see" your mom.

Well, he has dropped the "Joe" stuff. His post talks about CS&S. I don't necessarily agree until they get a fair trial....but he's dropped the Joe angle.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

It depends on how strongly you trust the individuals you talked to I guess. Did they work for you or are they your child or family friend?

Or is the topic of conversation on the Board of Trustees of your alma mater?

 

[Osprey Lion]

Barry Fenchak
596 Devonshire Drive, State College


Which - though it may not fit into a "screen name"......has been posted on this site 100's of times (and, would be safe to say, is no surprise to 99% of the regular posters on this board).



You anonymous coward.

Try again......but - for God's sake - don't EVER actually have the balls and the integrity to stand behind your own bloviations.

Chicken-shit Coward.

Walt Berezowsky
804 Golden Pond Ct
Osprey, Florida

 

[ChiTownLion]