You should just go back to protesting the election. You are out of your element, Donnie!
People are peppering you with facts, and all you give back is whiny insults and fake sanctimony. In other words, you lost.
The Jerry Sandusky Case: What Really Happened in Penn State’s Locker Room?
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
You should just go back to protesting the election. You are out of your element, Donnie!
People are peppering you with facts, and all you give back is whiny insults and fake sanctimony. In other words, you lost.
No, it implies exactly what Dranov testified which is he asked Mike what he had seen & Mike referenced sounds & Dranov inquired again but what did you see & again Mike only referenced sounds. Dranov then gave up on the question. You don't get to fault an article based solely on what YOU think the author implied. You can criticize the wording as being misguiding but he didn't misquote Dranov.
That is really a very good question. Which case, standing alone and without money motivation is the most solid?
The crux of case against Sandusky is that the prosecutors according to the jury proved there was a "course of conduct" by Sandusky conducive with child molestation. The whole thing was one giant circular logic argument that each accusation proves the intent behind the other ones. The problem is that the investigation was never kept secret enough to suggest information didn't pass between accusers/witnesses. Course of conduct requires that there be no other likely way the separate stories could be similar other than a pattern of conduct by the accused.
As you said, "Dranov then gave up on the question". Which means that he never got an answer to it. But anyone reading Pendergrast's article is going to come away believing that McQueary answered the question by saying that he didn't see a sex act, which is 100% incorrect.
The issue I have with his phrasing is very simple. Look at these sentences
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.
Clearly he's stating the Dranov asked a question, i.e. "Dranov asked. . .", and we are left to assume that the "No" is Mike's response. It logically follows then that he's trying to imply that Dranov asked the second question "Did Mike actually see . . .?", so when he follows it with "No", he certainly wants the reader to assume that "No" was McQueary's response". But it most certainly was not.
Last edited:
Well, if McQueary DID see that, he didn't tell his father that right after it happened. He didn't tell Dr. Dranov. He didn't tell Joe. He didn't tell Curley or Schultz. The "victim" in the episode told multiple investigators that nothing happened in that episode. So I think it is pretty likely that he did NOT see a sex act.
Well the jury didn't come to that conclusion because they convicted Sandusky of indecent assault, which is a sexual crime
Definition: Indecent assault is an assault that is sexual in nature. Any person who has indecent contact with another or takes indecent liberties with a person without his or her consent is guilty of indecent assault. It is a sex crime.
But regardless of whether he actually did or did not witness a sexual assault, he most definitely has never told anyone that he didn't see one. which is what Pendergrast is implying.
Last edited:
I seem to recall McQueary coming out and refuting the "anal rape" language that was used in the grand jury presentment. Am I remembering that correctly?
I'm guessing that your "No" is in reference to the jury's verdict. If you meant something else, please be a bit more specific.
Here's what they returned regarding Victim 2 (the McQueary shower incident):
VICTIM 2
Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.
Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
They returned not guilty to the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge because that charge requires that there be penetration in order to be convicted. Since McQueary testified that he didn't see penetration, the jury felt there was reasonable doubt that penetration had occurred. But they did convict on the indecent assault charge which is a sex crime.
Sure. He said he never used those graphic words. But again that's not the same thing as saying that he did not witness a sex act.
It's pretty clear that McQueary witnessed aural sex that night. The problem is the "sex act" occurred between his own ears.
Semantics. Do you really think if McQueary witnessed Jerry dog pumping a kid in the shower, that he would take exception to the wording used in the grand jury presentment? Makes no logical sense.
Now, if he didn't really see anything, and just saw Jerry in the shower with a kid and it caught him off guard, then yes, his exception to the grand jury presentment wording WOULD make sense.
Lar, I think it is possible that Mike wasn't sure what he saw that night in 2001. He saw something that did not sit right with him, but exactly what that was, he wasn't sure.
Just guessing out loud here, but I think it is possible that it was not until much later, maybe even years later, that he became more concerned about what it was that he may - or may not - have seen. Or maybe he heard another rumor or rumblings a few years later and then decided to connect the dots that were left hanging in his mind.
To me, IF that was the scenario, there is no way to blame JVP or Tim or Gary or Spanier for their courses of action, because they reacted to McQ's info. And McQ was satisfied at the time.
Later, and again just my guessing here, after he added a couple more bits and pieces of info - true or not - his thoughts about what he 'probably' witnessed that night evolved into something more than horseplay. Without the kid to verify or deny, and with the passage of time, it hung around in his mind without a definitive answer until called to give info to the investigators. Investigators ask about it, and he says, 'well, here's what I saw, and it could have been what you're implying'.
Again, all just my guessing out loud.
First, my bona fides: I think JS is a pedophile and guilty as sin. However, based on what Dranov has said in court, if I was a juror evaluating the charges related to the McQ testimony, I'd be very confused exactly as to *what* MMcQ saw and have a very strong reasonable doubt regarding his testimony.
ok he is innocent abusing Victim 2. Now how do you get him off the other 45 counts and the several victims held back by the prosecution that have yet to testify in court. The man is a Pedo. He is where he belongs.
I continue to be amazed at how DUMB the general population is. The response above shows absolute disregard to the facts here and is substantiated in the mind of the poster by the ABSURD STATEMENT implying the Sandusky Legal case is about Child abuse.
My amusement is how the entire legal process has been CONSISTENTLY ignored by the public because someone in a corrupt government position - the PA OAG - painted a picture of "child rape" in the public's mind. This image was without anything like reasonable evidence. In spite of many legally questionable issues and processes, the case went to court. A "verdict" was rendered but this verdict was based upon MASSIVE procedural misconduct, perjury, false information (and a press that poisoned the jury pool for the case). Yet everyone seems to think all this is "alright" because they put a "monster" away for life.
What is missed is that there remain SERIOUS questions about the OAG - the BOT - TSM - Tom Corbett - which remain unanswered after 5 years. These issues all provide MOTIVE for how this "quick execution in the court of public opinion" created the results that were obtained in the PA courts. Flatly, the conviction is HIGHLY and CREDIBLY suspect.
What continues to be missed here is that the issue is not Sandusky's ABSOLUTE guilt or innocence - it is about the legitimacy of the LEGAL CASE against Sandusky!!! Sandusky may be guilty of some form of abnormal behavior with kids he saw at TSM, but the LEGAL evidence of these issues is now HIGHLY suspicious. The EXTENT of these behaviors seems more and more like "expansions of reality" - certainly NOT what Sandusky's was convicted on.
One thing appears certain ....the case against PSU - Paterno and the Penn State Football program has way too much politically-focused benefits to some "higher-ups" and obtaining these benefits is what continues to promote a fundamentally absurd, legally and factually suspicious "STORY".
Using the "remember the victims" line as a method of killing any disagreement or call for re-evaluation is just more of the public manipulation that has been engineered into this matter.
Based on facts, re-investigating the entire Sandusky affair is in the interest of both justice and in protecting basic LEGAL citizen's rights. This re-evaluation by re-trial could uncover the REAL crimes committed here and thereby provide significant improvement to protecting "the victims" throughout the State. This is NOT THE CASE with supporting a known and flawed media "STORY"..
Wow, the amount of mental gymnastics and semantics games you put yourself through to make sense of MM's lies are stunning.
It's there in black and white and no spin is needed. Dr. D said straight up that MM did NOT describe seeing any particular sex act when telling him what happened. This is completely counter to MM's 2010 revisionist history bullshit statement that he was certain that JS was sodomizing a kid and reported it as such. Sodomy is a sex act. Therefore there is a discrepancy between MM's version and Dr. D.
You also completely ignore the fact that in Dr. D's version there is no part about MM seeing a kid with his hands up against the wall with JS hugging him from behind. That's another discrepancy.
Now, according to you, you are trying to use the incredibly weak argument that MM saw a sex act or what he thought was a sex act but was unable to articulate that to JM/Dr. D that night or any other time for the next 9 yrs but he was able to spill his guts to C/S who he. barely knew?? Please. That dog won't hunt.
If MM's 2010 version is true, how do you explain MM expressing no dissatisfaction or saying more needed to be done (like having someone from UPPD come to get MM's statement so they could arrest and question JS) when TC called MM a few weeks later to follow up?? Why didn't JM or Dranov express outrage to Schultz when they had their little business powwow a few months later?? Surely if MM was 99.9% certain JS was a child rapist they would be quite upset with the fact he was still a free man no??
I agrree that the victim 2 counts are very questionable. I believe the victim 1 counts are questionable as well. 12 people who know v1 as well as anyone including best friends, girl friends, the mother of his child, aunts, next door neighbors, and parents of close friends are willing to go on the record in the own names and say they don't believe that v1 was abused by Sandusky. V1 and v2 are the pillars of the case against Sandusky. If their accusations don't hold water, IMO the case against Sandusky collapses. All of the other accusations were based on the premise that Sandusky abused v1 and v2. Since Sandusky's initial trial was inherently unfair, he should be entitled to a new trial. If he is fortunate enough to be awarded a new trial, I believe there is a very good chance he will be found not guilty of all charges in a new trial.
What John McQueary testified to should have the most weight. Mike called him moments after he saw JS in the shower. Mike told his father he saw nothing sexual.
Mike McQueary told his father he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy moments after the incident.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Yes and they indicted Curley and Schultz so they couldn't testify on Jerry's behalf and they hid Alan Meyers in the woods.
This, the janitor case and the '98 case should have never seen the light of day.
Let's be clear. You can be sexually assaulted without being penetrated (in fact, that's exactly what Sandusky was convicted of). Just because McQueary didn't witness penetration does NOT mean that he didn't witness a sexual assault
Mike told his father he did not see penetration. He did not tell his father he didn't witness a sexual assault. So your statement "Mike told his father he saw nothing sexual" is a falsehood.
BTW - I'd like to read that complete article. Can you tell me where you pulled your quotes from?
I'm not trying to argue what did or did not go on in the shower. I'll never know.
What I do know, because it is documented, is what people have testified to. What I object to is people falsifying that testimony. All this crap that goes around about McQueary changing his testimony is mainly due to people inaccurately repeating his words.
Dranov's testimony refutes that Mike saw an assault.
Sr McQ's memory of the discussion with MMcQ further refutes that Mike witnessed an assault.
If Mike believed he saw something "sexual" that night between Sandusky and a young boy and then that same night told his dad and Dranov that he saw something "sexual", why did none of them report it to the police that night? Or ever? Inconvenient isn't it?
Really? How so? Dranov's testimony specifically states that McQueary implied that something sexual was going on. How could that possibly refute Mike's witnessing an assault?
I can think of several reasons, the most likely one being that Dranov and McQueary Sr felt that if McQueary Jr was going to accuse the second most respected individual in the county (behind Paterno) of such a heinous crime, they'd better get their ducks all lined up.
That's YOUR interpretation of what it implied. That obviously wasn't what Dranov inferred from it based on his lack of immediate action. Unless you believe he is the lowest form of human waste...
Paterno wasn't a "duck" in pedophile cases in Center County or anywhere else for that matter. Honestly, your arguments are so pathetically weak.
No it's not my interpretation, it's Dranov's testimony. I don't have to put words in his mouth.
From his testimony at Day Seven of Sandusky's trial:
Q: Did he (McQueary) 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.
So there you go. Dranov's own words.
Regardless of whether you consider him a "duck" or not, if you are going to accuse the second most popular guy in the county of something, it can't hurt to have the most popular guy in the county in your corner.
"He implied that it had gone on with sexual sounds". Sexual sounds behind a set of doors with water running mind you. I will repeat It's obvious Dranov didn't infer a sex act had occurred based on his actions/inaction that night.
Good point. Leave a young boy who had just experienced a "sex act" by an older man alone with the perpetrator so that you could wait until the next day to get a guy who would not be an investigator, witness, judge or juror in the case in your "corner". Who wouldn't do that?
Apparently it's lost on you that implying something is happening is NOT the same thing as eye witnessing it, and there is a big difference when third parties are told one or the other when giving advice.
MM never eye witnessed any sex act, etc..Dranov's testimony confirms this. All MM had to back up his speculation was sounds that he heard, according to Dranov. That's not definitive enough evidence to make a claim of suspected child abuse against a pillar of the community so I'm guessing that is why MM/JM/Dr. D considered calling the police that night but declined and instead told MM to go the HR route of reporting a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable....which is exactly what JM/Dr. D/C/S/S/Joe/JR all testified to re: the 2001 incident.
There is literally no one backing up MM's 2010 version and no one's actions in 2001 support it either.
I'm certainly not arguing that they are one and the same. I don't know what went on in that shower, neither do you. You have every right to have the OPINION that Mike didn't witness as sex act. But what neither you nor Pendergrast have the right to do is change Dranov and McQueary's testimonies and claim that they testified that Mike did not witness a sex act. Neither of them said any such thing.
