The 12 jurors in Sandusky's case backed up McQueary's version by convicting Sandusky of indecent assault.
The Jerry Sandusky Case: What Really Happened in Penn State’s Locker Room?
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
The 12 jurors in Sandusky's case backed up McQueary's version by convicting Sandusky of indecent assault.
OK. You're welcome to draw that conclusion. Just don't try to extend that logic to the point that you have Dranov testifying that McQueary told him he didn't witness a sex act, because that sure as hell never happened, despite Pendergrast's attempts to put those words in Dranov's mouth.
Pathetic. I would have never believed that so many people would be so willing to
defend a pedophile. UncleLar is trying to be the voice of reason but there is no way
to convince conspiracy theorists and plain crazy people they are wrong. This same
conversation has been going on here ad nauseam for years. Nothing is going to change.
All you Sandusky defenders are doing is providing fodder for fans of other schools
to use to criticize PSU.
defend a pedophile. UncleLar is trying to be the voice of reason but there is no way
to convince conspiracy theorists and plain crazy people they are wrong. This same
conversation has been going on here ad nauseam for years. Nothing is going to change.
All you Sandusky defenders are doing is providing fodder for fans of other schools
to use to criticize PSU.
Perhaps we swap "The Bridge" for "Frank Fina" and have 107,000 wear at next whiteout?
Understand your and others point of view, but I don't think everyone is defending Sandusky. At the risk of beating a dead horse, some simply find fault with the manner in which the trial was conducted. Don't see anything wrong with that. As far as providing fodder, who cares? The time for worrying about optics has long passed.
I don't really give a rat's ass about fans from other schools, they made up their mind 5 years ago.
And JS is where he belongs.
But I would like to get this right. If his trial was unfair - I don't know the standards - then he should get a new trial, that's our system.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, 3 or 4 weeks ago, Dranov testified that he didn't think McQ's report that night was worth calling in the police. He & McQ Sr. didn't advise that, yet the testimony says a crime was committed. That moment right there destroyed the reputation of a lot of people, the institution, cost millions, and the admins continue to face serious charges. The charity walks, Dranov & Sr walk, Mike has $7m coming, and a brand that took 50 years to build has been left in ruins.
I want to know what happened which is why so many continue to pick at the scab.
Now, now...this is all about "justice" and the right to a fair trial. The circular arguments have clearly proven JS is a victim here. #J4J Justice4Jerry!!!!!
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Neither Dranov nor JMcQ felt that a call to the police was warranted given their understanding of the matter. Had they believed that a sexual Assault was committed, i believe that at least one of the two, and probably both, would have recommended calling the police that very evening. Of course, Dranov stated outright that he did not think what he was told warranted a call to the police.
Add to that the fact that none of the people whom MMcQ told in 2001 felt that a call to the police was warranted given what they were told and the reasonable person can easily conclude that no sexual assault was observed or communicated.
Perhaps Meyers was with Gene Marsh. Must have been a cabin rented by Baldwin...
You're simply wrong. Nobody is changing the testimony. They are comprehending what was stated and what it meant.
Mike did not "see". Mike heard and assumed something. Dranov did not believe an assault occurred. Dranov clearly stated this.
Twelve Jurors said OJ Simpson was innocent
Twelve Jurors said Casey Anthony was innocent
Twelve jurors also convicted Sandusky of the 2000 janitor incident when (1) no victim was identified and (2) the witness suffered mental illness and could not testify.
So, what your point? You claims are on unstable and flimsy footing.
Bottom line: No one has testified (besides Mike) that Mike reported seeing anything criminal. The only thing consistent from the testimony of the parties he spoke with in 2001, are the sounds and he was uncomfortable.
So why does Mike need his ducks lined up when we are talking about the safety of a child? Mike has said he was certain the boy was being sodomizing. Mike was the eyewitness at the scene of the crime. He could have easily called the police at that very moment and there would have been a victim and evidence to support his accusations.
Neither John Sr or Dranov have testified to what you claim here (get their ducks lined up). They both believed it was not necessary to call the police (that night or any other), but instead informing his supervisor was the right answer.
I honestly think they would have been charged too if that was their response. We felt Mike should call the cops, BUT we wanted to get our ducks in a row. Again too many people here think they know what Mike, saw, heard, and said based on a 10 year old memory. Where as the actual victims who testified to much more than just a tickle or touch are all LIARS for money. Forest...trees...anyone?
I think what is more important is that he never told Dranov (or apparently anyone) that night or for the next 10 years that he DID witness a sex act.
Are you really this dense? MM himself in his own testimony said he never eye witnessed any sex act, etc. because he couldn't see anyone's hands or privates and that he THOUGHT sodomy was occurring based on the sounds, etc.. He admitted to Roberto in 12/16/111 prelim that he wasn't 100% sure what they were doing in the shower because of this.
You asked how does Dravno's testimony that MM implied something sexual occurred refute that MM witnessed an assault. It's simple, if MM witnessed an assault there'd be no need for speculation or for MM to infer anything, MM would have just said that he saw an assault. When Dranov questioned MM all he had to back up what he inferred was the sounds he heard, not visual evidence of seeing abuse taking place, kid in pain/distress, or anything else.
Even JM's own testimony at the 12/16/11 prelim corroborates my claim that the "sexual" part of MM's story was always inferred and not witnessed:
Page 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM):
(keep in mind, someone witness a sexual assault between a man and child is most certainly a "crime")
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, I'm sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Does this sound to you like MM reported that he witnessed a sex act or was certain that JS was abusing a kid? I don't think so. Even the "sexual in nature" part of JM's testimony is couched with "led me to believe", meaning that MM didn't actually see anything sexual only implied it, just like Dr. D said.
I think that and the fact that they all(?) had the same lawyer, right or wrong, leads to this sort of speculation. Then there is the repressed memory thing, which many question. All of this raises skepticism in the eyes of some, and that in my view is understandable. Doesn't make everyone a member of some sort of "Free Jerry" cult. But fear not, little chance that a new trial will ever happen.
First trial was fair and he was swiftly taken to where he deserves to go. He should have testified but he didn't. Boo hoo... bye bye Sandusky, ya creep. Have fun spending your life in jail and then eternity in hell.
Okay - I'll beat that dead horse.
I have a few questions.
But it still begs the point of Penn State being on Jack Raykovitz's doorstep, effectively cutting off the charity and Jack not sitting Jerry down in a chair and reading him the riot act.
I just don't get it. What the hell was really going on with the leadership over at the Second Mile? Makes my head spin.
I have a few questions.
- Why couldn't Mike have just uttered 3 words- Sex.In.Shower and then collapsed. Simple, to the point, and no one would be endlessly arguing over what the hell happened. Or just write a goddamned account of what went on and slide it across the kitchen table that night.
- Why didn't Mike take Tim and Gary to the scene of the crime? SHOW THEM where you were standing, what you were doing, what you saw and where. Wouldn't this have better illustrated to these guys what was going on - especially if it was so awful?
But it still begs the point of Penn State being on Jack Raykovitz's doorstep, effectively cutting off the charity and Jack not sitting Jerry down in a chair and reading him the riot act.
I just don't get it. What the hell was really going on with the leadership over at the Second Mile? Makes my head spin.
LOL. My point is that plenty of people believe McQueary, including the 12 jurors. You just won't find them on this board.
What McQueary has testified to is that he did not see actual penetration. As long as you are throwing insults around, let me respond in kind by saying are you so dense that you don't understand that you don't have to have penetration for there to be a sexual assault? Plus even, if I accept everything you say as being true, that is still not the same thing as McQueary stating that he did not see a sexual assault. Those words have never come out of his mouth despite you and others trying to put them there.
LOL....who do you think has the most accurate knowledge of what MM reported that night, the first two people he spoke to (neither of whom thought whatever he said was bad enough to warrant a call to UPPD and felt it was best handled via HR report up the chain), or 12 people hearing about it 10 years later during a bastardized kangaroo court version of justice system and who couldn't hear the admins side of the story?
Last edited:
The issue at hand is whether or not "we" are comfortable with a Judicial/Prosecutorial system that behaves the way it did in the entire Sandusky Fiasco.
Now........feel free to keep on jumpin'!!!!
How did MM know a sexual assault took place if he couldn't see anyone's hands or privates? The sounds?? Please. He had nothing definitive to verify what he was supposedly trying to infer.
MM's report in 2001 was vague and riddled with assumptions, that's the most likely reason for why NO ONE he spoke to thought it was bad enough to involve UPPD in an official capacity but was bad enough to kick up the chain all the way to TSM where it promptly died, and yet MM/JM/Dr. D were all perfectly ok with that somehow....until 9 years later.
John McQueary says "what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature" and somehow you are trying to turn this into confirmation that McQueary didn't witness something sexual. That's a train of thought I just can not follow.
And I'll repeat for about the fifth or sixth time. Even if I accept everything that you have stated as true, that is not the same thing as Mike McQueary stating he did not see a sexual act.
I can make this simple.
I agree that McQueary did not witness penetration.
I agree that he only implied that something sexual was going on.
I don't know what Dranov inferred.
I do know that John McQueary inferred that it was sexual because you just quoted him as coming to that conclusion
I also know that Dranov has never testified that Mike McQueary told him he did not witness a sex act.
I also know that John McQueary has never testified that Mike told him he did not witness a sex act.
I also know that Mike McQueary has never testified that he did not witness a sex act.
Yes he did tell both of them he did not witness penetration, but there is nothing in the law that says you have to have penetration for a sexual crime to have been committed.
You are entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to claim that McQueary answered no to the question "Did you see a sexual assault?" He did no such thing.
The issue at hand is whether or not "we" are comfortable with a Judicial/Prosecutorial system that behaves the way it did in the entire Sandusky Fiasco.
Now........feel free to keep on jumpin'!!!!
Why don't you and the other Sandusky defenders contact Project Innocence. Show them your
"expert" legal opinions and they will help you free Sandusky if your conclusions have merit.
Sitting here and crying on each others shoulders isn't helping him. All this has become
is a support group for those of you that can't handle the truth.
Last edited:
Better watch yourself. Remember what happened to the last guy that uttered that phrase?
It wasn't a no to your post , but kevina001. He was drawing some ridiculous conclusions . I Just posted without quoting and your post just beat mine.
It is damn near as certain as you can get that Mike never told anyone in 2001 that he saw or witnessed a sexual assault.
That's like proving a negative. Impossible.
What is certain is that Mike NEVER told anyone he witnessed a sex act.
I'd ask "how retarded and obtuse can you be"?.........
But I think you are intent on showing all of us anyway.
Proceed..........
Good grief...I love how you left out the first part of the testimony where JM says "it was at least a very inappropriate action..." There is grey area there aka MM didn't see anything definitive. Also notice how JM didn't say "MM told me the shower was sexual" or "he saw a sexual shower", etc....he said "what Mike told me LEAD ME TO BELIEVE it was sexual in nature". Which means the sexual part was IMPLIED and not witnessed by MM. If you're not bright enough to grasp the difference then I don't know what to tell you.
This testimony lines up with Dranov's, that MM was trying to infer something bad may have been happening based on the sounds but couldn't say for sure b/c he couldn't really see anything. This also makes them not calling the police that night and instead punting to Joe the next day make perfect sense.
IMO this is also why JM was trying to avoid admitting giving this testimony when Rominger asked him about it at the JS trial. JM had a random case of demensia and the Judge allowed it somehow. JM's testimony at the 12/16/11 prelim blows a hole in the current/OAG narrative that MM eye witnessed a sexual assault and reported that he eye witnessed one. In reality MM wasn't sure about anything other than the shower was inappropriate and made him uncomfortable (which is exactly what 7 different people have testified to re: 2001).
OK, I understand and I'll agree.
However, I'm pissed off that neither Dranov or Sr. was charged with Endangerment along with the other guys. They could have called the cops but didn't. They wanted to protect Jr.'s coaching career, I presume.
MIKE DID NOT SEE SEXUAL ASSULT AND ITS PLAIN AS DAY IN HIS FATHERS TESTIMONY.
Why did John McQueary testify that Mike moments after the incident told him he saw NOTHING but Jerry in the shower with a boy? So is Mike lying or his father?
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or ANYTHING ELSE you can verify?” His son again said no.
....But it still begs the point of Penn State being on Jack Raykovitz's doorstep, effectively cutting off the charity and Jack not sitting Jerry down in a chair and reading him the riot act.
I just don't get it. What the hell was really going on with the leadership over at the Second Mile? Makes my head spin.[/QUOTE]
Jerry was horsing around with a kid who was like a son to him. Nobody was concerned about what happened that night. There's a reason for that and nothing Mike said to any of them caused them to think otherwise.
What they were concerned about was the next kid. Jerry was on a collision course with a civil suit which would have embroiled Penn State so long as he continued getting into possible he said/he said situations. All it would have taken was an accusation. Thus, everybody involved was focused on prevention. Even Jack Raykovitz, when Curley told him Jerry's guest privileges were revoked, proposed to have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower.
I just don't get it. What the hell was really going on with the leadership over at the Second Mile? Makes my head spin.[/QUOTE]
Jerry was horsing around with a kid who was like a son to him. Nobody was concerned about what happened that night. There's a reason for that and nothing Mike said to any of them caused them to think otherwise.
What they were concerned about was the next kid. Jerry was on a collision course with a civil suit which would have embroiled Penn State so long as he continued getting into possible he said/he said situations. All it would have taken was an accusation. Thus, everybody involved was focused on prevention. Even Jack Raykovitz, when Curley told him Jerry's guest privileges were revoked, proposed to have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower.
He said no such thing. He's testified to plenty of things that he did see which very definitely could be considered a sex act and, given that Sandusky was convicted of a sex crime, obviously were considered a sex act by the jury.
For example, at Sandusky's trial here's McQueary's exact words regarding his conversation with his father (this is under cross by Sandusky's attorney).
Q: What did you tell him you saw --
A: All right. I'll make it clear for you.
Q: -- very specifically?
A: I'll make it clear for you. Specifically, I can't tell you. If you are asking me for direct quotations from my mouth to my father, I cannot tell you that. I can tell you that he knew it was extremely sexual in nature, there was a young boy involved, Jerry was involve, and he knew it was disturbing and bad, and -- no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Later on in the cross examination, this exchange took place:
Q. And, actually, you didn't see anybody touching anybody's genitals?
A: I didn't see any genitals. To me, in that position, there's no way his genitals weren't up against the young boy's rear end. There's no way. They were extremely, extremely as close as you could be.
There's also another exchange later where McQueary responds
A:... They were naked. They were in a severe position with his front against that boy's back. Absent of seeing a penis in a rectum, I think he was having sex with him, yes.
McQueary is clearly describing something sexual. To try and paint this as "MM... said he never eye witnessed any sex act" is absurd. He's never come close to saying any such thing. You guys are all hung up on this penetration thing and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether there was a sexual assault in the shower or not. It's certainly relevant as to the degree of the assault but a lack of penetration does not mean there was no crime. Jerry Sandusky pressing his penis up against the back of a naked boy in a shower is a sexual assault regardless of whether penetration occurred or not. That's what McQueary has testified to and that's why Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault which is a sex crime.
Your twisting of multiple evidence sources to "confirm" what the OAG manufactured in 2011 is just another example of taking a conclusion and then working everything to support it from there.
IF...repeat...IF...the evidence existed as stated in the OAG presentment then it is reasonable to expect the "Guilty as charged" outcome you use to support your personal version of Sandusky reality.
However....we continue to see CREDIBLE evidence to support EVERYTHING that the OAG and the State of PA used to convict Sandusky IS TAINTED - if not manufactured. In fact, there is so much "evidence" that it appears the OAG wanted to create the illusion of guilt because IT KNEW that there was another story here and that the LEGAL CASE against Sandusky was "iffy" at best unless what was described as evidence was SERIOUSLY manipulated.
Remember, the state used the Grand Jury Process as a method of HIDING from the public key information about the Sandusky case and any real evidence that existed. This is both illegal and a significant point which supports the premise that Sandusky's trial was engineered for deception. Tainted evidence is NOT what American justice should be based upon!!!
The real question is WHY did the state of PA "tilt the playing field" in a court of law if the real evidence supported a "Guilty Sandusky"? Why continuously reinforce this suspicion by "suspicious" legal processing and unprecidented legal interpretations. You only need to look at the bogus C/S/S trials which will not occur for more than 6 years to validate the suspicious characteristics of the entire Sandusky trial.
REMEMBER...absolute guilt or innocence is NOT the reason for "supporting a pedophile" and demanding a retrial based upon a legally level playing field - but it is, a reason for discrediting what you continue to quote a "proof".... because your "proof" is based on the same tainted evidence and legal process that "suspiciously" convicted Sandusky.
Justice is what every person that the media calls a "JoeBot" wants....nothing more nothing less. Where the TRUTH takes us is not a problem...what is a problem is the mountains of suspicious, questionable and manipulated evidence that has been used to convict both Sandusky and implicate Penn State Football in "criminal Culture" issues.
Rather than argue on Sandusky....how come you don't support getting the state to answer this....In the "infamous" janitor "sworn statements" involving a witnessed "shower incident" - which by the way was used to convict Sandusky on several counts - the statements obtained by the state asked "...was it Sandusky you saw in the shower with that boy...". The response from the witness was EMPHATICALLY "No it was NOT Jerry Sandusky". The state then invalidated the sworn statement because the witness suffered from dementia. WHAT????? How convenient and how suspicious that Sandusky would be convicted by testimony that DEFINITIVELY STATED he was not the subject of the event witnessed!!!
More importantly....WHY would the state of PA take testimony about suspicious behavior with a minor in "Penn State Facilities" and KNOWINGLY not follow up to find out who that person was at the time???? They KNEW it WAS NOT SANDUSKY...yet nothing was done with that evidence to investigate a potential crime?? This alone provides all the evidence needed to support that this entire matter REEKS of a PA engineered criminal scandal and basic legal abuse!!!
If you can answer just this one fact above, your continuous attempts at shoehorning this currently tainted evidence pool as "real evidence" would make much more sense!!!
I am still waiting for you to answer, so is John lying or is Mike Lying.
You said
I also know that John McQueary has never testified that Mike told him he did not witness a sex act.
Plain as day in Johns testimony that John did testify that Mike told him he did not witness a sex act. MIKE TOLD JOHN HE WITNESSED JS IN THE SHOWER WITH A BOY AND THAT IS IT. Mike said to John he didn't witness anal sex, penetration, sodomy or ANYTHING ELSE. That is moments after the incident when Mikes memory would be freshest. Anything Mike added after that point to claim he saw anything more is a lie.
Following his son’s testimony yesterday, John McQueary took the stand to corroborate the now infamous shower story told to him over a decade ago.
McQueary began by recounting the phone call he received from his son 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 could tell [Mike] was very distraught and upset.”
“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.
Last edited:
