Very interesting article by Mark Pendergrast in the Crime Report
http://thecrimereport.org/2016/11/1...t-really-happened-in-penn-states-locker-room/
http://thecrimereport.org/2016/11/1...t-really-happened-in-penn-states-locker-room/
The Jerry Sandusky Case: What Really Happened in Penn State’s Locker Room?
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Oh geez the first freaking paragraph is wrong. That pretty much tells me all I need to know and didn't read any further...
>>he Jerry Sandusky case has cost Penn State a lot of money. $7.3 million to Sandusky “whistleblower” Mike McQueary because he lost his job. $2.4 million levied against Penn State for failing to act on McQueary’s abuse report.<<
Uhhhh No. Hell it wasn't even as much of a fine as the f'n fire doors or emergency exits.
The Sandusky/PennState story never ceases to amaze me. A retrial is absolutely necessary. Whatever happens, Penn State financial losses will never be retrieved, which is so unfortunate.
More importantly, thanks to our BOT and the news media, will Its reputation.
Why? That's probably the most accurate article on the topic I've seen.
Oh geez the first freaking paragraph is wrong. That pretty much tells me all I need to know and didn't read any further...
>>he Jerry Sandusky case has cost Penn State a lot of money. $7.3 million to Sandusky “whistleblower” Mike McQueary because he lost his job. $2.4 million levied against Penn State for failing to act on McQueary’s abuse report.<<
Uhhhh No. Hell it wasn't even as much of a fine as the f'n fire doors or emergency exits.
Yup. There's plenty other stuff wrong in there too.
For example, he writes
Dranov was unable to get McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?”
To the older men, slapping sounds did not necessarily imply…sexual activity.
McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
That strongly implies that Mike McQueary responded "No", when asked if he had seen "any sexual act"? McQueary did not respond to that question - and Dranov was clear that McQueary did not respond directly but did imply that something sexual was going on. So the writer is putting words in both McQueary's and Dranov's mouths that were never uttered.
Difficult to determine when reviewing the latest transcript from Dranov. Seems like Dranov asked him what he saw. Did Mike respond with nothing, as in no answer or answered 'nothing'. Seems like the latter.
So after all this testimony, Mike still claims he saw or believes he saw JS sodomizing the kid and reported that. Yet no one has testified that Mike told them he saw that. It all just comes back to these sounds that he heard before entering the locker room and assumed they were sexual sounds.
Slapping Sounds? Seems to me that Frank Fina and his fellow porn-addled gunslingers in the Office of Attorney General were into "slapping sounds", hard core pornography, images showing the violation of women, as well as haranguing female staffers/admins about their breasts and their private lives.
That told me all I needed to know about "slapping sounds" in a shower as presented by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
Has anyone seen Frank Fina?
That told me all I needed to know about "slapping sounds" in a shower as presented by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
Has anyone seen Frank Fina?
How would you know what is accurate? All you defenders of a convicted pedophile do is reflect badly on PSU. You all are as crazy as those that think OJ is innocent. .
Do you believe that Sandusky is entitled to a fair trial? IMO, his first trial wasn't anywhere close.
One would assume that all of us (or at least the large majority of us ) have had some rather "enthusiastic" sexual sessions from time to time (if not recently, at least back in our "youth" )
The idea that sounds heard outside....
in a hallway....
beyond a door (or two)....
emanating from around a corner......
from inside a shower area with multiple running shower heads......
Were "SEX SOUNDS"? Between a grown man and a 13 year old boy?
Give me a break.
Even a "VIVID STUDIOS" sound engineer wouldn't try to put such ludicrous scenarios onto a soundtrack.
FWIW, let's be clear - I do not believe ANYONE - most especially the one witness - EVER said or claimed ANYTHING along the lines of something so silly as:
"Jerry was packing the kids ham from behind, and the slapping sounds were created from his muffin-humping"
The entire "slapping sounds" MEME was included, animated, and highlighted (in boldface and underline) for the titillation factor.........probably by Frankie "A$$ Rammer" Fina (as I suppose would be WenSilver's contention)
) have had some rather "enthusiastic" sexual sessions from time to time (if not recently, at least back in our "youth" )The idea that sounds heard outside....
in a hallway....
beyond a door (or two)....
emanating from around a corner......
from inside a shower area with multiple running shower heads......
Were "SEX SOUNDS"? Between a grown man and a 13 year old boy?
Give me a break.
Even a "VIVID STUDIOS" sound engineer wouldn't try to put such ludicrous scenarios onto a soundtrack.
FWIW, let's be clear - I do not believe ANYONE - most especially the one witness - EVER said or claimed ANYTHING along the lines of something so silly as:
"Jerry was packing the kids ham from behind, and the slapping sounds were created from his muffin-humping"
The entire "slapping sounds" MEME was included, animated, and highlighted (in boldface and underline) for the titillation factor.........probably by Frankie "A$$ Rammer" Fina (as I suppose would be WenSilver's contention)
I for one don't believe Sandusky is innocent...I just don't believe that he was doing anything on the nite MM went into the Lasch building. I believe Myers lawyered up and got a ton of coin. I can't believe the lawyer didn't ask Myers if the man that abused him was in the courtroom on Nov 4th...seems to me that would be a pretty logical question to ask....
I also don't believe he got a fair trial...not even close.
That was discussed at length at the time.......absolutely no reason for JS's Lawyer to ask that (actually, would have been incredibly stoopid)
Why didn't the prosecution ask that question is perhaps what he meant. To me, that is more telling.
I agree....wasn't there an opposing lawyer in the courtroom?...Sorry...didn't follow the case on Nov 4th very closely at all...
The only 3 things that Judge Cleland would allow testimony at the PCRA evidentiary hearing were regarding:
1. Whether Joe McGettigan made a knowingly false statement when he implied that v2 was known only to God
2. Whether the prosecution and JS’s defense made a deal not to call AM to testify at trial
3. Evidence of JS’s innocence
The question of whether AM was abused by Sandusky does not into any of those 3 areas. That being said, Sandusky's lawyer Al Lindsay asked Sandusky if he ever abused AM which he replied "absolutely not." I believe that this pertained to issue 3, evidence of JS's innocence.
I also believe the reason the OAG attorney Jennifer Peterson didn't ask AM is he was abused by Sandusky is that would then imply that Joe McGettigan knew that AM was v2.
Sounds like Cleland is trying to insure the outcome...no new trial. Let's not get to the truth... Another end run...what a country we live in...may they all rot in hell...
Dranov was asked that question and he most certainly answered it. Here is a link to Dr. D's testimony at the JS Trial. It starts at the bottom of page 8.
=========================
Page 13:
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.
==========================
Sounds to me like Mike was suspicious that JS was abusing a kid but when people pressed him as to why he thought that, all he could come up with was the sounds he heard since he didn't see any actual abuse/sex act, only implied it based on the sounds. Apparently MM, JM, and Dr. D all agreed that wasn't enough for MM to go to the police with but certainly something Joe/HR should handle. There's nothing wrong with that approach until 9 years later and MM says he reported definitive child abuse.
Dr. D's version of the story (MM saw a kid peek his head around the corner, a hand pulls him back in, then moments later JS and a kid walking out of the shower) also greatly differs from MM's since there is no mention of MM seeing a kid with his hands propped up against the wall and JS hugging him from behind.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but there's no other logical explanation as to why not one person, including MM himself, felt the need for MM to make an official written statement to UPPD after hearing what MM had to say and what backed up his suspicions, etc - all he had to support his speculation was the sounds he heard and apparently that was not definitive enough.
Last edited:
Anyone who wastes their time weeping for Sandusky doesn't have a sane bone in their body.
My advice to you that do, get a life.
My apologies......I probably should have been more definitive.
The whole thing is such a Mosh Pit :-(
All I was commenting about was the inanity of the entire "Slapping Sounds" as the Sounds of Jerry Rump Roasting a Little Boy Meme......nothing more.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
Are you one of the its time to move on crowd? Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual? Do you believe that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz enabled the acts of a pedophile? Do you believe that the November 2011 grand jury presentment that stated Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower is factual?
OK, but she, on the other hand, by asking that question is implying that he was abused by Sandusky. So, don't we end up in the same place?
It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on the PCRA. Both Sandusky and the OAG have made what effectively are there closing arguements (they were posted on the Centre County web pages today). IMO, if Judge Cleland looks at the evidence objectively then I believe he will grant Sandusky a new trial. That being said, I am not holding my breath. If he rules against Sandusky, Sandusky's lawyers will immediately appeal. They have gotten a lot of very compelling evidence into the records and I like Sandusky's chances on appeal to Superior Court and/or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
No Dranov was not asked that question.
We are talking two different questions here.
What you highlighted from the testimony is the following:
Q: Did he describe seeing any particular sex act? A. No, he did not.
But the way that the author of the article, Mike Pendergrast, phrased it was.
Q: Did Mike actually see a sex act? A: No.
Just because Mike didn't describe seeing a sex act does not mean that he didn't see one. In fact, Dranov clearly explained it when he testified that Mike implied that he saw a sex act by referring to sexual sounds. Pendergrast's article distorts Dranov's testimony (just like dozens of other people on here have done in a similar manner).
Should anyone "waste their time" weeping over the bastardization of our Justice/Judicial/Prosecutorial system?
We know your "take"........or am I mistaken?
If you want to take up the cause of someone who you believe didn't get a fair trial,
pick someone who may be innocent.
LOL
Like that makes a difference
Good Lord - - - and you probably can't even grasp THAT!
Your intellectual depth is at about the same level as 21 Guns' gene pool
Good point. Very good post.
And AM affirmed he gave the statement in 2011 to the defense team. He never walked back from it.
Uh, isn't that what the trial is supposed to determine?
I'm not the one defending a pedophile. Check your gene pool. Your lack of common
sense is appalling.
