Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

[PSU2UNC]

My views of the case as a prosecutor
1) MM saw something that just didn't seem right, and by seem right, I mean he thought there was something sexual in nature going on. I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. He isn't doing that for simple horseplay.
2) That being said, I don't think that he saw enough to be sure that it was sexual in nature. Otherwise, I have to believe, that either he would have stepped in, called the police immediately or his dad or Dr Dranov would have done it. Dranov definitively testified (please correct me if I am wrong) that he did not think what MM told him was something that needed to be reported to the police. The fact that his Dad, Dranov, GS and TC all did not believe they heard something that needed to be reported to the police seems to indicate that MM did not clearly express what he saw as being sexual
3) I certainly don't think he clearly indicated to Paterno, TC or GC that he saw something sexual in nature. To believe that all of those men plus MM's Dad and Dranov all knew that MM claimed to have seen Jerry molesting a kid and were all cool with not reporting it is unimaginable to me. This would have all required a conspiracy as well, since if MM did report something sexual, they would have all had to agree to lie to Spanier about it if Spanier subsequently asked or Spanier would also have had to be included in a conspiracy. Can't imagine the conspirators deciding they should then contact the 2nd Mile....
4. I simply think GS and TC interpreted what MM was saying as horseplay, I don't that's what MM said though, no reason to call dad that night otherwise.
5. Memory is a tricky thing, most people view memories as if its a photograph, forever imprinted in your mind. Most shrinks testify that a memory is actually always changing with time, testimony 10 years later about an event is usually different than what you initially perceived. It's funny, to test that out I looked at some old videos of sporting events that I remembered, and my memory was not nearly as close to the actual events as I remembered.
6. When the news first broke, I did not believe any of the criticisms of the OAG. However, their handling of the indictment where they said MM onviewed a rape (which MM specifically told them was incorrect) and the use of Baldwin's testimony (I cannot even begin to describe how unethical that was) made me think twice.
7. OAG charged the hell out of that case, that was clearly designed to get someone to flip. No one did.
8. In the end, they should have called the police. If MM was worried enough about the conduct to report it, there is no harm in calling the police and let them investigate.
9. It's funny, even though I think that GS had the least criminal culpability, I think his failure might have been the greatest (besides MM's). GS had a duty to protect the school, and he had the education level and expertise to understand what could be at stake (not just morally, but liability wise as well) and should have made sure the police were contacted.

Thanks for chiming in with your professional opinion.

One small point of contention; you wrote: " I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. "

There's pretty significant reason to believe that he did not talk to his father/Dranov the same night that the shower incident occurred (either that or all three are lying about the date).

 

[DandyDonII]

Thanks for chiming in with your professional opinion.

One small point of contention; you wrote: " I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. "

There's pretty significant reason to believe that he did not talk to his father/Dranov the same night that the shower incident occurred (either that or all three are lying about the date).

I know there is a big contention about what night this occurred. Can you illuminate me on why the specific night is so pivotal?

 

[PSU2UNC]

I know there is a big contention about what night this occurred. Can you illuminate me on why the specific night is so pivotal?

If Mike witnessed whatever he witnessed in the shower (in December as many now believe) and then waited several months (until Spring Break) to talk to anyone about it, this indicates to me:

1) Whatever he witnessed wasn't that serious (i.e. not only did he not intervene or call police, he didn't even mention it to anyone for months).

2) Something must have happened where all of a sudden he decided to mention this incident. The timing is oddly coordinated with the WR coach position coming open.

 

[nits74]

Thanks for chiming in with your professional opinion.

One small point of contention; you wrote: " I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. "

There's pretty significant reason to believe that he did not talk to his father/Dranov the same night that the shower incident occurred (either that or all three are lying about the date).

I still don't know about Sandusky's guilt or innocence, but one thing has become clear to me. And that is MM has lied his way through all of this, and winning his ridiculous lawsuit ensures that we'll never hear another thing from him. Not unlike at least some of the so-called victims, who profited handsomely from concoctions.

 

[DandyDonII]

If Mike witnessed whatever he witnessed in the shower (in December as many now believe) and then waited several months (until Spring Break) to talk to anyone about it, this indicates to me:

1) Whatever he witnessed wasn't that serious (i.e. not only did he not intervene or call police, he didn't even mention it to anyone for months).

2) Something must have happened where all of a sudden he decided to mention this incident. The timing is oddly coordinated with the WR coach position coming open.

I figure that is why the date is not important to me. I don't think MM is lying.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I figure that is why the date is not important to me. I don't think MM is lying.

I'm fascinated that you would think that, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[step.eng69]

So, you prefer to weigh in completely uninformed rather than even partially?

YIKES.... rabbit punch..... kidney punch....or an old fashion kick to the balls. Wonder which hurt the most.
Have a fine weekend Ziggy

 

[Mixolydian]

I figure that is why the date is not important to me. I don't think MM is lying.

Not sure I’m following you. The date has to be important. If the shower happened in December (I’m not saying it did), and he reported it to JVP in February then by definition he lied.

 

[Connorpozlee]

True.
However, if you hear directly from the people involved, and you know them to be good, honest people, you can feel rather confident about what they say about it in general terms even without knowing the exact statements made in 2001.
Just my opinion, based on my experience.

Sure. But the exact statements really do matter. Not McQueary’s, “I would have said” nonsense. And ten years down the line there is no way to remember exact statements.

 

[pandaczar12]

Keep fighting. Eventually you will knock yourself out.

You should heed your own advice.

 

[DandyDonII]

Not sure I’m following you. The date has to be important. If the shower happened in December (I’m not saying it did), and he reported it to JVP in February then by definition he lied.

If he reported to his dad and Dranov the day it occurred, and reported to Joe the next day, don't care when the date was. But yes, I agree, if he witnesses it and then waited a few months to report, then I could see the lying angle.

Just like I find it hard to believe that these men would all conspire to cover up a molestor, I find it almost as hard to believe that MM would allow Joe's reputation to become destroyed and allow the PSU 3 administrators to be subject to prison for the lie. And once you go down the rabbit hole of MM lying, you need to find a reason for him to be forced to lie, and that involves such a huge conspiracy, that I don't think it is reasonably possible to believe that it occurred.

 

[Mixolydian]

If he reported to his dad and Dranov the day it occurred, and reported to Joe the next day, don't care when the date was. But yes, I agree, if he witnesses it and then waited a few months to report, then I could see the lying angle.

Just like I find it hard to believe that these men would all conspire to cover up a molestor, I find it almost as hard to believe that MM would allow Joe's reputation to become destroyed and allow the PSU 3 administrators to be subject to prison for the lie. And once you go down the rabbit hole of MM lying, you need to find a reason for him to be forced to lie, and that involves such a huge conspiracy, that I don't think it is reasonably possible to believe that it occurred.

Tend to agree. That same line of thinking is why I don’t believe a whole bunch of good people were told about sexual molestation of a child at the time and no one thought it was worthy of reporting it to the police. McQueary is not very bright and is more full of shit than he is a liar in my opinion.

 

[RussianEagle]

My views of the case as a prosecutor
1) MM saw something that just didn't seem right, and by seem right, I mean he thought there was something sexual in nature going on. I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. He isn't doing that for simple horseplay.
2) That being said, I don't think that he saw enough to be sure that it was sexual in nature. Otherwise, I have to believe, that either he would have stepped in, called the police immediately or his dad or Dr Dranov would have done it. Dranov definitively testified (please correct me if I am wrong) that he did not think what MM told him was something that needed to be reported to the police. The fact that his Dad, Dranov, GS and TC all did not believe they heard something that needed to be reported to the police seems to indicate that MM did not clearly express what he saw as being sexual
3) I certainly don't think he clearly indicated to Paterno, TC or GC that he saw something sexual in nature. To believe that all of those men plus MM's Dad and Dranov all knew that MM claimed to have seen Jerry molesting a kid and were all cool with not reporting it is unimaginable to me. This would have all required a conspiracy as well, since if MM did report something sexual, they would have all had to agree to lie to Spanier about it if Spanier subsequently asked or Spanier would also have had to be included in a conspiracy. Can't imagine the conspirators deciding they should then contact the 2nd Mile....
4. I simply think GS and TC interpreted what MM was saying as horseplay, I don't that's what MM said though, no reason to call dad that night otherwise.
5. Memory is a tricky thing, most people view memories as if its a photograph, forever imprinted in your mind. Most shrinks testify that a memory is actually always changing with time, testimony 10 years later about an event is usually different than what you initially perceived. It's funny, to test that out I looked at some old videos of sporting events that I remembered, and my memory was not nearly as close to the actual events as I remembered.
6. When the news first broke, I did not believe any of the criticisms of the OAG. However, their handling of the indictment where they said MM onviewed a rape (which MM specifically told them was incorrect) and the use of Baldwin's testimony (I cannot even begin to describe how unethical that was) made me think twice.
7. OAG charged the hell out of that case, that was clearly designed to get someone to flip. No one did.
8. In the end, they should have called the police. If MM was worried enough about the conduct to report it, there is no harm in calling the police and let them investigate.
9. It's funny, even though I think that GS had the least criminal culpability, I think his failure might have been the greatest (besides MM's). GS had a duty to protect the school, and he had the education level and expertise to understand what could be at stake (not just morally, but liability wise as well) and should have made sure the police were contacted.

What do you think of the fact the boy in the shower had Jerry Sandusky stand in for his absent father at his school Senior night football game, chose to live with the Sandusky’s while he attended PSU, volunteered as an assistant coach at Sandusky’s football camp as a young adult, drove 10 hours to attend the funeral of Jerry’s mother, invited Jerry to his wedding and allows him to use a picture of them together as the graphic in Jerry’s second mile retirement letter, wrote a letter to the editor of several newspapers defending Jerry after the investigation became public, strongly denied being abused by Sandusky when questioned by police while acknowledging the police were pressuring him to turn on Jerry, and gave a statement to Sandusky’s attorney strongly defending Jerry after he was arrested?

That’s far more relevant than speculating what might have been said during a 3 minute conversation between Joe and Mike in 2001, in which both would have certainly forgotten what exactly was said 10 years later.

 

[manatree]

Bringing it back to the original topic, has anyone here actually read the book yet?

 

[RussianEagle]

If he reported to his dad and Dranov the day it occurred, and reported to Joe the next day, don't care when the date was. But yes, I agree, if he witnesses it and then waited a few months to report, then I could see the lying angle.

Just like I find it hard to believe that these men would all conspire to cover up a molestor, I find it almost as hard to believe that MM would allow Joe's reputation to become destroyed and allow the PSU 3 administrators to be subject to prison for the lie. And once you go down the rabbit hole of MM lying, you need to find a reason for him to be forced to lie, and that involves such a huge conspiracy, that I don't think it is reasonably possible to believe that it occurred.

ESPN reporter Don Van Natta confirms McQueary was potentially in big trouble for gambling on college football and sending pictures of his penis to a woman not his wife.



There is also an email confirming that McQueary contacted prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach right after he was outed as the witness and said the grand jury report misquoted his testimony. Eshbach basically acknowledged McQueary was right but essentially told him to shut up.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Bringing it back to the original topic, has anyone here actually read the book yet?

What does the book have to do with anything?

 

[Mixolydian]

What does the book have to do with anything?

Check the thread title dumbass.

 

[lionville]

My views of the case as a prosecutor
1) MM saw something that just didn't seem right, and by seem right, I mean he thought there was something sexual in nature going on. I based this on the fact that he called his father that night and met with his dad and Dranov that night. He isn't doing that for simple horseplay.
2) That being said, I don't think that he saw enough to be sure that it was sexual in nature. Otherwise, I have to believe, that either he would have stepped in, called the police immediately or his dad or Dr Dranov would have done it. Dranov definitively testified (please correct me if I am wrong) that he did not think what MM told him was something that needed to be reported to the police. The fact that his Dad, Dranov, GS and TC all did not believe they heard something that needed to be reported to the police seems to indicate that MM did not clearly express what he saw as being sexual
3) I certainly don't think he clearly indicated to Paterno, TC or GC that he saw something sexual in nature. To believe that all of those men plus MM's Dad and Dranov all knew that MM claimed to have seen Jerry molesting a kid and were all cool with not reporting it is unimaginable to me. This would have all required a conspiracy as well, since if MM did report something sexual, they would have all had to agree to lie to Spanier about it if Spanier subsequently asked or Spanier would also have had to be included in a conspiracy. Can't imagine the conspirators deciding they should then contact the 2nd Mile....
4. I simply think GS and TC interpreted what MM was saying as horseplay, I don't that's what MM said though, no reason to call dad that night otherwise.
5. Memory is a tricky thing, most people view memories as if its a photograph, forever imprinted in your mind. Most shrinks testify that a memory is actually always changing with time, testimony 10 years later about an event is usually different than what you initially perceived. It's funny, to test that out I looked at some old videos of sporting events that I remembered, and my memory was not nearly as close to the actual events as I remembered.
6. When the news first broke, I did not believe any of the criticisms of the OAG. However, their handling of the indictment where they said MM onviewed a rape (which MM specifically told them was incorrect) and the use of Baldwin's testimony (I cannot even begin to describe how unethical that was) made me think twice.
7. OAG charged the hell out of that case, that was clearly designed to get someone to flip. No one did.
8. In the end, they should have called the police. If MM was worried enough about the conduct to report it, there is no harm in calling the police and let them investigate.
9. It's funny, even though I think that GS had the least criminal culpability, I think his failure might have been the greatest (besides MM's). GS had a duty to protect the school, and he had the education level and expertise to understand what could be at stake (not just morally, but liability wise as well) and should have made sure the police were contacted.

Don’t forget that JS wasn’t just some retired PSU employee, and MM was a 20-something GA still wet behind the ears. I believe JS’ status weighed into decisions made.

 

[L.A.Lion]

Just like I find it hard to believe that these men would all conspire to cover up a molestor, I find it almost as hard to believe that MM would allow Joe's reputation to become destroyed and allow the PSU 3 administrators to be subject to prison for the lie.

My opinion is that McQueary did not lie about seeing Sandusky in the shower with a boy or that Sandusky bearhugged the victim. A similar incident had been investigated by the police, the county, and the state a couple years earlier. during which Sandusky admitted to physical contact with a boy while both were showering nude. What I have a hard time believing is that everything McQueary said about how he reacted to what he saw was accurate. I similarly struggle with crediting testimony of Dranov and John McQueary as accurate. At trial John McQueary couldn't remember his preliminary hearing testimony from a few months earlier even when confronted with the transcript, yet he testified about events a decade old with no contemporaneous notes or other written records. I certainly wasn't there and don't know the truth of what happened with those three, but their stories sound very much to me like they were discussed and tailored to avoid being tainted with the same stench of cowardice and inaction in the face of child abuse that the press had wafting over Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

 

[Mixolydian]

My opinion is that McQueary did not lie about seeing Sandusky in the shower with a boy or that Sandusky bearhugged the victim. A similar incident had been investigated by the police, the county, and the state a couple years earlier. during which Sandusky admitted to physical contact with a boy while both were showering nude. What I have a hard time believing is that everything McQueary said about how he reacted to what he saw was accurate. I similarly struggle with crediting testimony of Dranov and John McQueary as accurate. At trial John McQueary couldn't remember his preliminary hearing testimony from a few months earlier even when confronted with the transcript, yet he testified about events a decade old with no contemporaneous notes or other written records. I certainly wasn't there and don't know the truth of what happened with those three, but their stories sound very much to me like they were discussed and tailored to avoid being tainted with the same stench of cowardice and inaction in the face of child abuse that the press had wafting over Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

When in fact MM, his dad and Dranov were in position to deal with the situation in real time, while the alleged victim was most likely still with the alleged perp. Yet they all chose not to....makes perfect sense

 

[DandyDonII]

What do you think of the fact the boy in the shower had Jerry Sandusky stand in for his absent father at his school Senior night football game, chose to live with the Sandusky’s while he attended PSU, volunteered as an assistant coach at Sandusky’s football camp as a young adult, drove 10 hours to attend the funeral of Jerry’s mother, invited Jerry to his wedding and allows him to use a picture of them together as the graphic in Jerry’s second mile retirement letter, wrote a letter to the editor of several newspapers defending Jerry after the investigation became public, strongly denied being abused by Sandusky when questioned by police while acknowledging the police were pressuring him to turn on Jerry, and gave a statement to Sandusky’s attorney strongly defending Jerry after he was arrested?

That’s far more relevant than speculating what might have been said during a 3 minute conversation between Joe and Mike in 2001, in which both would have certainly forgotten what exactly was said 10 years later.

First off, we don't know who the kid in the shower was (that's why reporting it at the time would have been helpful). Second, assuming it was that kid, there is a reason why Jerry did not have him called as a witness and it wasn't because he wanted to spend the rest of his
life in prison.

 

[RussianEagle]

First off, we don't know who the kid in the shower was (that's why reporting it at the time would have been helpful). Second, assuming it was that kid, there is a reason why Jerry did not have him called as a witness and it wasn't because he wanted to spend the rest of his
life in prison.

BS, we know exactly who the boy in the was. If Allan Myers lied in his statement to Curtis Everhart, why didn’t he come clean when he turned on Sandusky. Instead he still claimed to be Victim 2 in his claim against PSU, and PSU paid him as Victim 2. He was not called as a witness because his DUI lawyer just happened to be the man who represented nearly half of Sandusky’s accusers, and Myers was unemployed with a criminal record. And when you consider that the attorney Andrew Shubin committed a clear act of obstruction of justice in early 2012, plus the fact that Myers answered “I can’t remember” to some very simple questions, including one where he was asked when a picture of himself and Jerry Sandusky (at his own wedding) was taken when finally called to the stand at Sandusky’s appeal hearing, it’s clear the whole thing stinks!

Also, if “Victim 2” is not Allan Myers, then who was he? Sandusky certainly did not keep the boys he was spending time with a secret. He put all those pictures in his autobiography! No other accusers has claimed to be Victim 2 (despite the fact that doing so would be worth millions) and any other boys who were spending one-on-one time with Sandusky during that time period remain defenders of his.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

BS, we know exactly who the boy in the was. If Allan Myers lied in his statement to Curtis Everhart, why didn’t he come clean when he turned on Sandusky. Instead he still claimed to be Victim 2 in his claim against PSU, and PSU paid him as Victim 2. He was not called as a witness because his DUI lawyer just happened to be the man who represented nearly half of Sandusky’s accusers, and Myers was unemployed with a criminal record. And when you consider that the attorney Andrew Shubin committed a clear act of obstruction of justice in early 2012, plus the fact that Myers answered “I can’t remember” to some very simple questions, including one where he was asked when a picture of himself and Jerry Sandusky (at his own wedding) was taken when finally called to the stand at Sandusky’s appeal hearing, it’s clear the whole thing stinks!

Also, if “Victim 2” is not Allan Myers, then who was he? Sandusky certainly did not keep the boys he was spending time with a secret. He put all those pictures in his autobiography! No other accusers has claimed to be Victim 2 (despite the fact that doing so would be worth millions) and any other boys who were spending one-on-one time with Sandusky during that time period remain defenders of his.

If Allen Myers is such a liar and all around bad dude, why put any stock into anything he's said?

Simply put, if you discard some of his testimony as lies, then we must disregard all of it. Otherwise either side can cherry pick and use just the parts that support their case.

With that in mind, nothing you posted above is relevant. And none of it has anything to do with Jerry being found guilty - Allan didn't testify and the charges for crimes against him were found not guilty. (Except maybe one minor one of which the sentence has already been served)

Allan is a red herring

 

[RussianEagle]

If Allen Myers is such a liar and all around bad dude, why put any stock into anything he's said?

Simply put, if you discard some of his testimony as lies, then we must disregard all of it. Otherwise either side can cherry pick and use just the parts that support their case.

With that in mind, nothing you posted above is relevant. And none of it has anything to do with Jerry being found guilty - Allan didn't testify and the charges for crimes against him were found not guilty. (Except maybe one minor one of which the sentence has already been served)

Allan is a red herring

Because Allan had absolutely no incentive to defend Jerry, but had a HUGE financial incentive to turn on him. When one individual gives two contradictory stories, the one that didn’t lead to him being paid millions is almost certainly the truth.

I do not think Allan Myers is necessary an evil guy. He never testified under oath that he had any sexual contact with Jerry. He just said he was abused. I think he became convinced the horseplay in the shower was Jerry grooming him, and as you know, grooming still is by law considered sexual abuse even if no sexual contact took place. But I don’t think Allan wanted to specifically deny sexual contact took place because that would mean a smaller payout from PSU.

I agree that the saga of Allan Myers does not prove Sandusky innocent, but it does prove the incident witnessed by Mike McQueary was BS and does prove the innocence of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Not just legally, but morally as well.

 

[Madsol]

Don’t forget that JS wasn’t just some retired PSU employee, and MM was a 20-something GA still wet behind the ears. I believe JS’ status weighed into decisions made.

McQueary was a 24/25 year old former Div. 1 QB when it happend. We ask 18/19/20 year olds in our military to do much more harrowing things everyday than what McQueary needed to do if he saw what he saws he saw. Stop with the wet behind the ears nonsense.

 

[francofan]

Because Allan had absolutely no incentive to defend Jerry, but had a HUGE financial incentive to turn on him. When one individual gives two contradictory stories, the one that didn’t lead to him being paid millions is almost certainly the truth.

I do not think Allan Myers is necessary an evil guy. He never testified under oath that he had any sexual contact with Jerry. He just said he was abused. I think he became convinced the horseplay in the shower was Jerry grooming him, and as you know, grooming still is by law considered sexual abuse even if no sexual contact took place. But I don’t think Allan wanted to specifically deny sexual contact took place because that would mean a smaller payout from PSU.

I agree that the saga of Allan Myers does not prove Sandusky innocent, but it does prove the incident witnessed by Mike McQueary was BS and does prove the innocence of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Not just legally, but morally as well.

Allan said I can't remember 34 times when he testified 34 times at Sandusky's evidentiary PCRA hearing. I think he took a dose of disremember memory therapy from his lawyer Andrew Shubin before he testified. He conveniently disremembered anything that would support Sandusky's defense like the picture that was taken with Sandusky and him at his wedding and all the times he said that he was never abused by Sandusky and that Sandusky was a good person. I think it was very interesting that Allan didn't remember any specifics of being abused by Sandusky when asked if he was ever abused..

http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html

 

[Madsol]

Why are you (and your buddies who insist on polluting these threads) so invested in this false narrative being correct?

I would think that as more and more evidence comes out that suggests that Paterno and C/S/S did nothing wrong, you would be happy.

Are you too embarrassed to admit you were wrong?

Do you hate Paterno?

Are you secretly a Rutgers fans?

Please enlighten us.

This has always been the million dollar question for me re: people like Osprey who purport to be Penn State fans. Whatever one's view of Paterno, what is undeniable is that he is inextricably linked to Penn State as a whole. So it logically follows that anything that improves Paterno's image, improves Penn State's image as well. Yet someone like Osprey is so deeply invested in perpetuating the narrative that Paterno led a conspiracy of silence that valued football over kids being sexually assaulted that he's willing to have Penn State's image be negatively affected so long as nothing is done to revive Paterno's image. It suggests something almost pathological on his part. He's got big problems that he is so affected by a guy who's been dead for 7+ years and who I'm sure he didn't even know.

 

[francofan]

Key questions in this case are "Who is victim 2?" and, in particular, "Is Allan Myers is victim 2?" Frank Fina and the OAG claim that victim 2 is unknown and most certainly that Allan Myers is not victim 2. This is an important question because if Allan Myers is victim 2, it puts a serious dent in the credibility of Mike McQueary's testimony that he saw something sexual in the Lasch building locker room.

I believe it is evident that Allan Myers is in fact victim 2. He is the only person to come forward and tell a credible story that they were the boy in the shower with Sandusky that fateful evening (most likely December 29, 2000) that McQueary has spoken about. If there was someone else with a credible story that they were vicitm 2, we would have surely heard about it.

I discount the reasons that Frank Fina stated he didn't think Myers was victim 2. Not being able to accurately draw a detailed layout of the looker room does not mean that they were never in the looker room. In addition, stating the date of the incident was the erroneous date that Mike McQueary and the OAG used in the grand jury presentment does not mean he wasn't there. Afterall, MM and the OAG have gotten the day, the month, and the year wrong TWICE.

I believe that Allan Myers was telling the truth when he spoke to Amendola's investigator, Curtis Everhart. I believe he conveniently disremembered things when he testified at the PCRA hearing.

Here are my notes from Sandusky's PCRA evidentiary hearing when Allan Myers testified.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/am-testimony-on-nov-4.153935/

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Key questions in this case are "Who is victim 2?" and, in particular, "Is Allan Myers is victim 2?" Frank Fina and the OAG claim that victim 2 is unknown and most certainly that Allan Myers is not victim 2. This is an important question because if Allan Myers is victim 2, it puts a serious dent in the credibility of Mike McQueary's testimony that he saw something sexual in the Lasch building locker room.

I believe it is evident that Allan Myers is in fact victim 2. He is the only person to come forward and tell a credible story that they were the boy in the shower with Sandusky that fateful evening (most likely December 29, 2000) that McQueary has spoken about. If there was someone else with a credible story that they were vicitm 2, we would have surely heard about it.

I discount the reasons that Frank Fina stated he didn't think Myers was victim 2. Not being able to accurately draw a detailed layout of the looker room does not mean that they were never in the looker room. In addition, stating the date of the incident was the erroneous date that Mike McQueary and the OAG used in the grand jury presentment does not mean he wasn't there. Afterall, MM and the OAG have gotten the day, the month, and the year wrong TWICE.

I believe that Allan Myers was telling the truth when he spoke to Amendola's investigator, Curtis Everhart. I believe he conveniently disremembered things when he testified at the PCRA hearing.

Here are my notes from Sandusky's PCRA evidentiary hearing when Allan Myers testified.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/am-testimony-on-nov-4.153935/

What does this have to do with the book?

 

[francofan]

Bringing it back to the original topic, has anyone here actually read the book yet?

I have read the book, focusing on chapter 5 "The Boy in the Shower."

It met my expectations. As Malcolm Gladwell stated in his interview on Ziegler's podcast, it fully exonerates Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Joe Paterno. It excoriates the prosecution. Although he offers no opinions on the key question in the case regarding Sandusky's culpability, he raises serious issues with what I believe are the 3 most damning accusations against Sandusky, v1 (AF), v2 (AM), and v4 (BSH). Carol Tavris in her Wall Street Journal review/opinion may have called Gladwell's lack of opinion "lazy thinking" for his unwillingness to go further, I applaud Gladwell for his willingness to have the courage to go against the established narratives of a conspiracy and a coverup by Penn State administrators. I believe that Gladwell does have a strong opinion on the key question in the case and that he will share that opinion when he believes the time is right.

"Talking to Strangers" is number 1 on the New York Times combined Print and E-book nonfiction list this week even though is was new to the category this week.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I have read the book, focusing on chapter 5 "The Boy in the Shower."

It met my expectations. As Malcolm Gladwell stated in his interview on Ziegler's podcast, it fully exonerates Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Joe Paterno. It excoriates the prosecution. Although he offers no opinions on the key question in the case regarding Sandusky's culpability, he raises serious issues with what I believe are the 3 most damning accusations against Sandusky, v1 (AF), v2 (AM), and v4 (BSH). Carol Tavris in her Wall Street Journal review/opinion may have called Gladwell's lack of opinion "lazy thinking" for his unwillingness to go further, I applaud Gladwell for his willingness to have the courage to go against the established narratives of a conspiracy and a coverup by Penn State administrators. I believe that Gladwell does have a strong opinion on the key question in the case and that he will share that opinion when he believes the time is right.

"Talking to Strangers" is number 1 on the New York Times combined Print and E-book nonfiction list this week even though is was new to the category this week.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

I don't believe you read the book, or, more to the point, understood the central premise.

You are a stranger to Jerry (and everyone else in the case) and were and are fooled by him.

That's the entire premise of the book.

He's telling those of us who have the ability to comprehend and reflect, that fools like you still exist.

Default to truth, franco, default to truth.

 

[lionville]

McQueary was a 24/25 year old former Div. 1 QB when it happend. We ask 18/19/20 year olds in our military to do much more harrowing things everyday than what McQueary needed to do if he saw what he saws he saw. Stop with the wet behind the ears nonsense.

Well, You totally whiffed on that one SMH.

 

[Madsol]

Well, You totally whiffed on that one SMH.

Sure I did. Poor little Mikey, he was just a wittle, bitty guy.

 

[RussianEagle]

I don't believe you read the book, or, more to the point, understood the central premise.

You are a stranger to Jerry (and everyone else in the case) and were and are fooled by him.

That's the entire premise of the book.

He's telling those of us who have the ability to comprehend and reflect, that fools like you still exist.

Default to truth, franco, default to truth.

Funny how the same people who believe Sandusky must be guilty because of the Bob Costas interview and the fact that he did not take the stand at his trial will claim he is an “expert at fooling people”

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Funny how the same people who believe Sandusky must be guilty because of the Bob Costas interview and the fact that he did not take the stand at his trial will claim he is an “expert at fooling people”

Why?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Key questions in this case are "Who is victim 2?" and, in particular, "Is Allan Myers is victim 2?" Frank Fina and the OAG claim that victim 2 is unknown and most certainly that Allan Myers is not victim 2. This is an important question because if Allan Myers is victim 2, it puts a serious dent in the credibility of Mike McQueary's testimony that he saw something sexual in the Lasch building locker room.

I believe it is evident that Allan Myers is in fact victim 2. He is the only person to come forward and tell a credible story that they were the boy in the shower with Sandusky that fateful evening (most likely December 29, 2000) that McQueary has spoken about. If there was someone else with a credible story that they were vicitm 2, we would have surely heard about it.

I discount the reasons that Frank Fina stated he didn't think Myers was victim 2. Not being able to accurately draw a detailed layout of the looker room does not mean that they were never in the looker room. In addition, stating the date of the incident was the erroneous date that Mike McQueary and the OAG used in the grand jury presentment does not mean he wasn't there. Afterall, MM and the OAG have gotten the day, the month, and the year wrong TWICE.

I believe that Allan Myers was telling the truth when he spoke to Amendola's investigator, Curtis Everhart. I believe he conveniently disremembered things when he testified at the PCRA hearing.

Here are my notes from Sandusky's PCRA evidentiary hearing when Allan Myers testified.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/am-testimony-on-nov-4.153935/

The key question to me is this:
Why would a man who is in charge of an agency that helps at-risk youth and has been investigated by the police for showering alone with a boy and having physical contact him before agreeing to not participate in that activity ever again, continuing to participate in that activity?

 

[UncleLar]

I figure that is why the date is not important to me. I don't think MM is lying.

I also don't think McQueary is lying for one simple reason. Years before this all broke (I believe around 2006), I casually mentioned Sandusky's name to McQueary, talking about how great Sandusky's charity work was. McQueary went bat shit crazy, twice exclaiming "F*** Jerry Sandusky, f*** Jerry Sandusky" before regaining his composure. That never made sense to me until years later when this all broke. There's little doubt in my mind that he saw Sandusky doing something to a kid that he thought was an assault and it bothered him immensely.

 

[86Engineer]

I also don't think McQueary is lying for one simple reason. Years before this all broke (I believe around 2006), I casually mentioned Sandusky's name to McQueary, talking about how great Sandusky's charity work was. McQueary went bat shit crazy, twice exclaiming "F*** Jerry Sandusky, f*** Jerry Sandusky" before regaining his composure. That never made sense to me until years later when this all broke. There's little doubt in my mind that he saw Sandusky doing something to a kid that he thought was an assault and it bothered him immensely.

Yes, it bothered him so much that he did nothing about it. Give me a ****ing break.

 

[PSU2UNC]

If Allen Myers is such a liar and all around bad dude, why put any stock into anything he's said?

Simply put, if you discard some of his testimony as lies, then we must disregard all of it. Otherwise either side can cherry pick and use just the parts that support their case.

With that in mind, nothing you posted above is relevant. And none of it has anything to do with Jerry being found guilty - Allan didn't testify and the charges for crimes against him were found not guilty. (Except maybe one minor one of which the sentence has already been served)

Allan is a red herring

OK, so let's hypothetically say that AM is not V#2.

I have an extremely hard time believing that V#2 (who is almost certainly from the same type of background as other victims) wouldn't come forward to claim his millions.

So unless V#2 died before 2012, I have to believe the V#2 is one of the victims who got compensation. AM is the only one who fits that incident.

Do you have another explanation?

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I Don't. It would be convenient for some people if V2 was dead.

As you point out, he'd be from a similar background. Let's just stipulate he's got limited family support.

It's not unheard of that a young man from that background might OD, otherwise die due to substance abuse, suicide, etc.

One might think that if he was sexually abused, that would increase the odds of the above.