The Jerry Sandusky Case: What Really Happened in Penn State’s Locker Room?

[UncleLar]

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.

If all he saw was Jerry Sandusky taking a shower with a kid, what in heaven's name got McQueary so distraught he was having trouble carrying on a conversation with both Dranov and his father? And why in heaven's name would they decide to report it to Paterno? They all knew a report like that would be problematic and cause issues. Why would they try to turn it into something more than it was if it was a simple boundary issue with Jerry showering with a kid? Reporting it to Paterno shows that they all thought an assault of some sort had taken place. They choose Paterno over the police because of Sandusky's saintly image in the community.

 

[indynittany]

If all he saw was Jerry Sandusky taking a shower with a kid, what in heaven's name got McQueary so distraught he was having trouble carrying on a conversation with both Dranov and his father?...

His dirty mind. We're talking about a guy who sent pictures of his junk to a coed and cheated on his wife with the girlfriend of a football player.

 

[UncleLar]

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. 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.

Neither of them are lying.

As I've said many times over, you're hung up on the penetration point. That is not the sole factor in determining a sex crime. The fact that Sandusky's genitals were obscured so he couldn't have seen penetration, does not mean that penetration didn't occur, nor does it mean that a sex crime didn't take place. The position of all the players was such that it would have been impossible for McQueary to see penetration anyway, so it's absurd to claim that because he didn't, no penetration could have occurred.

 

[Gitzit]

It would be nice if these type threads were moved out of the sports section. What does this have to do with Penn State football ?.. Maybe make a category just for sandusky threads

 

[LaJolla Lion]

His dirty mind. We're talking about a guy who sent pictures of his junk to a coed and cheated on his wife with the girlfriend of a football player.

None of that matters as 8 other victims testified against Jerry and it wasn't pretty. That is what put him in jail and some here can't seem to grasp. Blame the judges, his lawyers, Shubin, and just assume every victim is a liar because it hurt PSU. Blame everyone but Jerry Sandusky. MM wasn't a perfect guy. Some of his victims had a checkered past. Go on and on and on, but the thing is he will never be able to refute the testimony of his victims who are now all adults. If they all lied, they are the most evil group of people to ever walk the planet, but I'm somehow leaning to the guy who couldn't stay away from kids and had to be naked with them after being told to stop.

 

[UncleLar]

It would be nice if these type threads were moved out of the sports section. What does this have to do with Penn State football ?.. Maybe make a category just for sandusky threads

I've made my point over and over in this thread, so I'll drop the discussion this go round.

 

[bplionfan]

If all he saw was Jerry Sandusky taking a shower with a kid, what in heaven's name got McQueary so distraught he was having trouble carrying on a conversation with both Dranov and his father? And why in heaven's name would they decide to report it to Paterno? They all knew a report like that would be problematic and cause issues. Why would they try to turn it into something more than it was if it was a simple boundary issue with Jerry showering with a kid? Reporting it to Paterno shows that they all thought an assault of some sort had taken place. They choose Paterno over the police because of Sandusky's saintly image in the community.

YES, John testified that is all Mike told him he saw. You can stop right there. This moments after the incident when Mikes memory wouldn't be tainted. For some reason Mike was associating sex with the shower. Maybe because of some sound he thought he heard. Maybe he used it for sex previously. I don't know. Maybe he was drinking and he let his mind play tricks on him on his drive home. You can speculate all you want but what WE KNOW IS MIKE TOLD HIS DAD MOMENTS AFTER HE WALKED IN THE LOCKER ROOM IS HE SAW NOTHING BUT JS IN THE SHOWER WITH A BOY.

 

[bplionfan]

Neither of them are lying.

As I've said many times over, you're hung up on the penetration point. That is not the sole factor in determining a sex crime. The fact that Sandusky's genitals were obscured so he couldn't have seen penetration, does not mean that penetration didn't occur, nor does it mean that a sex crime didn't take place. The position of all the players was such that it would have been impossible for McQueary to see penetration anyway, so it's absurd to claim that because he didn't, no penetration could have occurred.

I am not hung up on penetration. I am hung up on the FACT that JOHN testified to MIKE telling him he saw nothing but JS in the shower with a boy. They could have been playing tiddly winks for all we know. But I do know MIke didn't see them having any sort of sex. What is absurd is claiming Mike did see a sex act when he called his dad moments after the shower incident he saw NOTHING of the sort.

 

[indynittany]

None of that matters as 8 other victims testified against Jerry and it wasn't pretty. That is what put him in jail and some here can't seem to grasp. Blame the judges, his lawyers, Shubin, and just assume every victim is a liar because it hurt PSU. Blame everyone but Jerry Sandusky. MM wasn't a perfect guy. Some of his victims had a checkered past. Go on and on and on, but the thing is he will never be able to refute the testimony of his victims who are now all adults. If they all lied, they are the most evil group of people to ever walk the planet, but I'm somehow leaning to the guy who couldn't stay away from kids and had to be naked with them after being told to stop.

When those victims initially came forward, only two had claimed any overt sexual contact. The others had to be manipulated to claim what they did at trial. And if their testimony was so compelling, why did the prosecution even bother with V2, V6 and the janitor incident?

The reason Mike's imagination matters here is that the V2 case was the centerpiece of the prosecution's show trial and the key to their making this a Penn State scandal, which it never was.

Maybe Jerry's a monster. I don't know. What I do know is that the system failed him. It failed JVP. It failed C/S/S. And it failed all of us who love Penn State. I believe a new trial is necessary to uncovering the truth and deserved by Sandusky given the irregularities in the original trial.

 

[Mixolydian]

None of that matters as 8 other victims testified against Jerry and it wasn't pretty. That is what put him in jail and some here can't seem to grasp. Blame the judges, his lawyers, Shubin, and just assume every victim is a liar because it hurt PSU. Blame everyone but Jerry Sandusky. MM wasn't a perfect guy. Some of his victims had a checkered past. Go on and on and on, but the thing is he will never be able to refute the testimony of his victims who are now all adults. If they all lied, they are the most evil group of people to ever walk the planet, but I'm somehow leaning to the guy who couldn't stay away from kids and had to be naked with them after being told to stop.

Can we stipulate that pedophilia is awful? Sandusky is most likely some form of a pedophile and where he belongs. None of that is inconsistent with the fact that without "victim 2", and how McQueary handled that incident at the time and a decade later, PSU and PSU football are asterisks in the entire saga and would never have been dealt the financial and reputational harm they endured. It also seems the OAG used McQueary and "victim 2" as the lynchpin to their entire case starting with the GJP. So many people here are interested in that aspect and curious about what really happened there. Not sure why it is so hard to separate victim 2 from the rest of the case. While I have questions about the trial and certain victims, I am not a free Jerry guy. I do have a ton of questions about what really happened in the shower that night and what was said and how it was handled in the hours, days and decade following. I am not apologizing for having those questions.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

When those victims initially came forward, only two had claimed any overt sexual contact. The others had to be manipulated to claim what they did at trial. And if their testimony was so compelling, why did the prosecution even bother with V2, V6 and the janitor incident?

The reason Mike's imagination matters here is that the V2 case was the centerpiece of the prosecution's show trial and the key to their making this a Penn State scandal, which it never was.

Maybe Jerry's a monster. I don't know. What I do know is that the system failed him. It failed JVP. It failed C/S/S. And it failed all of us who love Penn State. I believe a new trial is necessary to uncovering the truth and deserved by Sandusky given the irregularities in the original trial.

Again blame everyone but Jerry. Molestation victims struggling to come forward is not rare and that isn't some mystery either. PSU leadership screwed this up and let it be about PSU instead of a sick monster. I get that it bothers you PSU was dragged through the mud. The leadership at the time made it about PSU. It bothers me, but not enough that I have to say every victim lied or JS is somehow a victim sitting in prison. The man was told to stop showering with kids...he couldn't. He was investigated more than just this one time and those things are some pretty huge red flags when the people who he molested all testified that he did it.

The system didn't fail Jerry...Jerry failed as a human being. His disgusting behavior is what bothers me most as a fellow human. MM is discussed here over and over and over again...it doesn't matter which is the funniest part. The actual victims taking the stand is what led to the vast majority of his convictions. The how or why they got there is irrelevant now as the victims testifying is what landed him in prison. A new trial isn't making that go away somehow, but if you need to hear them all over again...have fun if it occurs.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Can we stipulate that pedophilia is awful? Sandusky is most likely some form of a pedophile and where he belongs. None of that is inconsistent with the fact that without "victim 2", and how McQueary handled that incident at the time and a decade later, PSU and PSU football are asterisks in the entire saga and would never have been dealt the financial and reputational harm they endured. It also seems the OAG used McQueary and "victim 2" as the lynchpin to their entire case starting with the GJP. So many people here are interested in that aspect and curious about what really happened there. Not sure why it is so hard to separate victim 2 from the rest of the case. While I have questions about the trial and certain victims, I am not a free Jerry guy. I do have a ton of questions about what really happened in the shower that night and what was said and how it was handled in the hours, days and decade following. I am not apologizing for having those questions.

Feel free to question that victim as the end result at this point doesn't change.

 

[Mixolydian]

Sounds a little like "what difference at this point does it make". Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[PSUPALY]

Can we stipulate that pedophilia is awful? Sandusky is most likely some form of a pedophile and where he belongs.

most likely?....um, he IS a pedophile.

how effin hard is it to not shower naked with kids? how effin hard is it, after getting busted showering with a kid, then specifically being told to NOT shower with anymore kids.....to not effin shower with any kids??? the answer is.....he's a pedophile and couldn't help himself!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Sounds a little like "what difference at this point does it make". Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Does it or does it sound like this impacted my school and hurt me so I'm holding out hope regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is. That is fine, but I'm not sure this case is the best case to show as a PSU fan or alum of corruption in the court system or state. I think we all know what he is, but some will continue to hold out hope for whatever reason.

 

[mn78psu83]

most likely?....um, he IS a pedophile.

how effin hard is it to not shower naked with kids? how effin hard is it, after getting busted showering with a kid, then specifically being told to NOT shower with anymore kids.....to not effin shower with any kids??? the answer is.....he's a pedophile and couldn't help himself!

That's my take.

As to whether or not he got a fair trial, that's a whole different issue and there is such thing as the PCRA because some in the past did not have their chance at a fair trial and lacked the proper recourse through the court system to set the record straight. The court(s) will decide.

 

[Mixolydian]

Does it or does it sound like this impacted my school and hurt me so I'm holding out hope regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is.

The evidence with regard to victim 2 and how it was handled in the hours, days and years later is FAR from overwhelming. You keep conflating that with Sandusky's guilt. I thought I was pretty clear that is not where I am coming from.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The evidence with regard to victim 2 and how it was handled in the hours, days and years later is FAR from overwhelming. You keep conflating that with Sandusky's guilt. I thought I was pretty clear that is not where I am coming from.

Ok, good luck there I guess.

 

[indynittany]

Again blame everyone but Jerry. Molestation victims struggling to come forward is not rare and that isn't some mystery either. PSU leadership screwed this up and let it be about PSU instead of a sick monster. I get that it bothers you PSU was dragged through the mud. The leadership at the time made it about PSU. It bothers me, but not enough that I have to say every victim lied or JS is somehow a victim sitting in prison. The man was told to stop showering with kids...he couldn't. He was investigated more than just this one time and those things are some pretty huge red flags when the people who he molested all testified that he did it.

The system didn't fail Jerry...Jerry failed as a human being. His disgusting behavior is what bothers me most as a fellow human. MM is discussed here over and over and over again...it doesn't matter which is the funniest part. The actual victims taking the stand is what led to the vast majority of his convictions. The how or why they got there is irrelevant now as the victims testifying is what landed him in prison. A new trial isn't making that go away somehow, but if you need to hear them all over again...have fun if it occurs.

If Jerry Sandusky is dying in prison because he showered after working out with two boys who were like his sons and maintained their relationships with him well into adulthood, then, yes...the system failed him.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If Jerry Sandusky is dying in prison because he showered after working out with two boys who were like his sons and maintained their relationships with him well into adulthood, then, yes...the system failed him.

Sure...you just have to ignore every other victim that testified. They don't count...nothing to see there.

 

[Mixolydian]

Ok, good luck there I guess.

Well at this point there are a bunch of legal proceedings still in process with that matter as the centerpiece, so please forgive those of us who maintain an interest...

 

[indynittany]

most likely?....um, he IS a pedophile.

how effin hard is it to not shower naked with kids? how effin hard is it, after getting busted showering with a kid, then specifically being told to NOT shower with anymore kids.....to not effin shower with any kids??? the answer is.....he's a pedophile and couldn't help himself!

It is rather difficult to shower with your clothes on.

I'm willing to bet that Jerry was advised not to shower with TSM kids for his protection, not because of any concern for the welfare of the kids.

 

[Osprey Lion]

If Jerry Sandusky is dying in prison because he showered after working out with two boys who were like his sons and maintained their relationships with him well into adulthood, then, yes...the system failed him.

There is something seriously wrong with you. Seek help.

 

[indynittany]

There is something seriously wrong with you. Seek help.

V2 says hello!

 

[WeR0206]

The position of all the players was such that it would have been impossible for McQueary to see penetration anyway, so it's absurd to claim that because he didn't, no penetration could have occurred.

You keep ignoring the fact that based on MM's own description of the positions (both standing upright with feet on the ground) and the height discrepancy, it would have been physically IMPOSSIBLE for sex to be happening. Or did you forget that the OAG had to prop a mannequin on a freaking stool just to make the physics work??

You also keep bringing up MM's testimony of seeing JS standing behind a kid with his arms around him in very close contact yet Dr. D's version of what MM told him that night and JM's summary of his phone convo with MM moments after the incident had nothing of the sort, according to Dranov MM heard some sounds, saw a kid peak around the corner, then momenets later he saw JS and kid leaving shower. That's it. I'd be willing to bet the extra stuff MM added came from porn dog fina's imagination.

MM simply has no credibility for a number of reasons. His own dad and family friend corroborate that MM reported a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable (which is exactly what no less than 7 different people testified to) but apparently MM didn't see anything definitive enough to tell UPPD so they could get an official criminal investigation started.

Both JM and Dranov said that what MM reported that night wasn't bad enough to call the police. There's no way to reconcile that with MM's 2010 version of him being certain sodomy was occurring and you now are tying yourself in knots with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about them being afraid of reporting this to police in order to explain these discrepancies (if you suspect criminal behavior you report it to the police not to the football coach the next morning - you do that for HR inappropriate shower issue).

 

[indynittany]

Sure...you just have to ignore every other victim that testified. They don't count...nothing to see there.

Ignore? No. Scrutinize. Yes! They changed their tales from what they claimed originally to what they claimed at trial. And there were plenty of financial and political incentives floating around to muddy the waters.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Ignore? No. Scrutinize. Yes! They changed their tales from what they claimed originally to what they claimed at trial. And there were plenty of financial and political incentives floating around to muddy the waters.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Neither of them are lying.

As I've said many times over, you're hung up on the penetration point. That is not the sole factor in determining a sex crime. The fact that Sandusky's genitals were obscured so he couldn't have seen penetration, does not mean that penetration didn't occur, nor does it mean that a sex crime didn't take place. The position of all the players was such that it would have been impossible for McQueary to see penetration anyway, so it's absurd to claim that because he didn't, no penetration could have occurred.

Your statement is total "grasp-at-straws" absurdity!

What gives you the right or reason to state a sex crime happened based up[on what you stated???

Your own statement confirms nothing....so if no one saw anything there MUST have been a sex crime because it is Jerry Sandusky - "sex Monster" (per the OAG Presentment). The only "crime" you seem to support is NUDITY and that alone is not a crime!!!

Your criminal suspicion seems to be based upon "tainted" MM testimony from a "worst case" story fabricated by the corrupt OAG Presentment document.

This OAG crafted statement has been refuted by several DIRECT WITNESSES to the statements made by MM back in 2001. Remember, TODAY - 2016 - we now know that NO ONE OTHER THAN MM supports anything MM said which would indicate any form of criminal activity. Every other bit of action and factual information supports no criminality.

And just for Toppers....the no sexual anything statement concerning the PSU 2001 shower event includes the VICTIM HIMSELF!!!

Give it up!!! YOUR FACTS on which you base your speculation (also called your own personal "wishes")???? Where are they???

 

[Legion of Lions]

If Jerry Sandusky is dying in prison because he showered after working out with two boys who were like his sons and maintained their relationships with him well into adulthood, then, yes...the system failed him.

Remember - he is not just dying in prison...he is dying in solitary confinement.

 

[kevina001]

Molestation victims struggling to come forward is not rare and that isn't some mystery either.

Huge sums of cash seems to be the elixir for the fear to come forward. These brave men must be saluted!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Huge sums of cash seems to be the elixir for the fear to come forward. These brave men must be saluted!

Saluted...no. Left the f--k alone by a crazy radio host and PSU FANATICS who care more about the school than what Jerry did to these people...sure. Thankfully the vast majority aren't bothering these people...but hey...you guys go get them on social media pnny. It's a great battle your fighting I hear. It would be one thing if some real evidence other than AF is a scum bag actually came up, but it hasn't. The bombshells have yet to occur. Any day now though.

 

[UncleLar]

Your statement is total "grasp-at-straws" absurdity!

What gives you the right or reason to state a sex crime happened based up[on what you stated???

Your own statement confirms nothing....so if no one saw anything there MUST have been a sex crime because it is Jerry Sandusky - "sex Monster" (per the OAG Presentment). The only "crime" you seem to support is NUDITY and that alone is not a crime!!!

Your criminal suspicion seems to be based upon "tainted" MM testimony from a "worst case" story fabricated by the corrupt OAG Presentment document.

This OAG crafted statement has been refuted by several DIRECT WITNESSES to the statements made by MM back in 2001. Remember, TODAY - 2016 - we now know that NO ONE OTHER THAN MM supports anything MM said which would indicate any form of criminal activity. Every other bit of action and factual information supports no criminality.

And just for Toppers....the no sexual anything statement concerning the PSU 2001 shower event includes the VICTIM HIMSELF!!!

Give it up!!! YOUR FACTS on which you base your speculation (also called your own personal "wishes")???? Where are they???

And you can't even grasp the point that I continually make. I'm not debating anything about what went on in that shower. I don't know what happened there and neither do you. What I am debating is people who distort the testimony of McQueary. We know what he testified to because there are transcripts. When you and others claim that McQueary testified that he didn't see a sex act, they are changing his words. He said no such thing.

 

[kgilbert78]

I'll just note that on last night's NCIS-New Orleans, which dealt with a case of abuse, Sandusky *was* mentioned by name. Thanks, BOT.

 

[LundyPSU]

And you can't even grasp the point that I continually make. I'm not debating anything about what went on in that shower. I don't know what happened there and neither do you. What I am debating is people who distort the testimony of McQueary. We know what he testified to because there are transcripts. When you and others claim that McQueary testified that he didn't see a sex act, they are changing his words. He said no such thing.

I think the real issue is what Mike now claims he saw and reported in 2001. Bottom line is that not a single person (including Mike) acted like a child was being assaulted. So that brings into serious question what was actually witnessed and reported in 2001.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

well that is how he acts on the test board so he is consistent.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

"get their ducks in row" suggests a plan. They had 1 duck, say something to JVP and then run for the hills.[no police no reporting no real follow up etc etc]

 

[Nit16]

Why didn't the prosecution ask that question is perhaps what he meant. To me, that is more telling.

Not an attorney but why would prosecution do or ask anything other than what they did. Prosecution won the case easily with their strategy on questioning. BTW what question that prosecution didn't pursue are you talking about?

 

[roswelllion]

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.

Lar, everything you say could have happened. however if Mr M "believed" there was sex, and if Dranov "believed" there was sex, then why no police and why no action for 9 years.
if you are correct someone should tar and feather all 3 of those guys.[metaphorically of course]

 

[Nit16]

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....

You're with everyone else in the country that knows JS was a monster. What difference does it make? Rolling around in the Sandusky mud trying to figure out if MM was 100% correct in his assessment that night doesn't help any victims and it doesn't help
Penn State. The guy is exactly where he belongs.

 

[bjf1991]

You're with everyone else in the country that knows JS was a monster. What difference does it make? Rolling around in the Sandusky mud trying to figure out if MM was 100% correct in his assessment that night doesn't help any victims and it doesn't help
Penn State. The guy is exactly where he belongs.

Good Grief

Whattadope