While I agree with you that getting the exact wording of the testimony correct is important, it is also important to keep in mind that this testimony occurred 10 years after the events in question. That strongly suggests that any testimony that involves "direct quotes" (i.e. "So-and-so said", or even "I said"...) have to be viewed through the lens of memory being imperfect over time.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Which is strange, since Fran Ganter was his boss, not Paterno.
He was upset enough the night it happened for his father and/or Dr. Dranov to tell him to go talk to Paterno. Whenever it was that he did talk to Paterno he was able to get across something concerning enough that Paterno took it up the chain of command the next day.
I would not expect him at admit it his plan.
As for his dad... Maybe he didn’t let his dad in on the scheme? Lots of possibilities.
Totally agree with that. I'm not making any argument about whether McQueary's testimony was accurate or not. What I do know is that AvgUser's statement of two days ago is not accurate. It is twisting McQueary's testimony.
The thing I have struggled with regarding the 6 week gap in events theory is that it involves McQueary lying to his Dad and saying it happened that night when it didn’t, or it involves Dad and Dranov participating in a massive conspiracy (possible but pretty hard to believe Dranov would participate and explicitly lie under oath). I have no problem believing McQueary would lie, but how would he know for sure Sandusky didn’t have a rock solid alibi in Feb?
How does Ziegler reconcile this?
The only thing those at the university were concerned about was preventing a future he said/he said situation from occurring. Schultz says as much in his notes: "Tell Jerry to avoid bringing children alone to lasch." Think about it! "Avoid"? "Alone"? If he thought for a second that Jerry might have abused a young boy in the facilities he managed, he would not have written this.
Bottom line. There is nothing in the written communication at the time to suggest anyone thought a boy had been abused by Jerry Sandusky. Those notes and emails are not subject to fading or distorted memories, coercion or fear of retribution. And they are perfectly consistent with Tim's and Gary's grand jury testimonies.
I'll ask again. Who benefited from the narrative, as it is written?
Don't know if this has already been addressed, but the concert alone would have made it beyond brain dead for Sandusky to try to rape a boy between 9:30 and 10:00. If the concert started at 8, like you say, either the concert would be in the process of ending, meaning cops and people everywhere, or the concert would be ending soon, which means a mass exodus at any time.
The last concert I went to down there was Bon Jovi. Bryce Jordan was packed to the rafters. It easily lasted more than an hour and a half. Trying to rape a boy between 9:30 and 10:00 hoping no one would walk in on you would be crazy.
So, when asked about his general well being about the situation, IIRC, Mike answered that he was doing "fine" or "OK"....or something like that, right?
Why then, if he was still so bothered by Sandusky after all these years, as you claimed earlier, did he not answer something like...."Well Joe, now that you asked, something is still bothering me about the whole mess"....instead of "fine" or "OK"?
Joe: Hey Mike. With regard to that thing we talked about a couple of months ago in my kitchen, is your general well being OK?
MM: Yeah coach I’m good. I’m sure I saw a young boy getting butt plugged by Jerry in the shower at Lasch and it appears that nothing was done to bring him to justice by you, Tim or Gary. But I’m totally fine.
Are you happy now? Or are you suggesting McQueary lied to Paterno and told him he was fine when he wasn’t “mentally” fine? Or are you suggesting he told Paterno he wasn’t physically and mentally OK with how things were handled and Paterno did nothing about that? And by the way this discussion happened a couple of times per McQueary himself.
Just be clear about what it is you are making up, because McQueary’s testimony is completely vague about how those discussions went and what was actually said.
I'm not convinced he talked to his Dad the night that it happened.
Possible scenarios if you think the December date is correct (which I do):
1) All three men (Mike, John, Dranov) got the date wrong by several months.
2) All three men are lying about the date (i.e. Mike did talk to them when it happened, but did not talk to Joe until months later) in order to cover for Mike.
3) Mike saw what he saw in December, then waited months to tell anyone. He then tells his dad and Dranov, who tell him to talk to Joe.
Am I missing anything (again assuming this occurred over winter break, not spring beak)?
I would argue that #3 is the most likely of those scenarios.
Why would McQueary concern himself with whether or not Sandusky had a February alibi? He originally thought the whole thing happened in March, the Friday before Spring Break!
No I'm not happy. You are making up a fictitious conversation. If you want to argue that McQueary's testimony is vague, then go ahead and make that argument. Just don't do it by creating falsely quoting people.
Don't know, don't care. My issue isn't with McQueary. My issue is with people making false statements about his testimony.
Regardless of what time the concert started or how lightly attended the hockey game was, McQueary would have certainly noticed all the drunk college students jaywalking across the streets as he was trying to drive on campus. It was a typical Friday night during the school year, and weather records indicate it was a unusually warm night for February.
So you think he was visibly shaken 6 weeks after the fact? That seems hard to believe.
That doesn’t really answer my question. As I understand it, the suggestion is that McQueary waited some number of weeks to report what he saw/heard to Paterno, and he wouldn’t have done that if he was really concerned about it.
So he knew where Sandusky was and what he was doing the night it happened. How did he know what he was doing on a night many weeks later? And did he fake outrage to his Dad and Dranov many weeks later or were they part of the conspiracy.
I never quite understood this line of thinking, but maybe I am missing something? It’s an honest question. I’m happy to be better informed or corrected.
I think it’s normal to be nervous when you go talk to your boss because you are interested in a position that has just opened.
God forbid someone should make a false statement about Mike!
All the while, people's lives have been ruined because of false statements made by Mike.
Seriously, how can you defend that POS?
Not if he approached Lasch by driving north on University Drive (I believe his apartment was south of campus and he would have headed to Lasch via University Drive which doesn't get that much foot traffic.
It should have been obvious I was making up a conversation to make a point. I thought “butt plugged” was a dead giveaway for those who aren’t obtuse. Try to keep up here.
I’m in referring to his conversation with his dad and Dranov.
Because I believe most of the so-called false statements by Mike are just like this one, i.e. they are fabrications made by others that don't accurately reflect what he actually said.
I would think Dranov and Dad didn’t remember much about what happened and had their memories refreshed by Mike. Dranov was certain McQueary didn’t tell him he saw a sexual act, but that’s it.
I’m not sure if McQueary talked to Dad and Dravov on December 29, February 9 or sometime in between. Ziegler is convinced it was earlier based on his conversation with Gary Schultz, But I am open to any possibly.
No kidding Sherlock. I was also making a point about made up conversations. My issue is those made up conversations where there aren't dead giveaways. They are repeated so often that people start to believe them. Yours is just a not so subtle variation of the same thing.
If it was earlier then wouldn’t they have had to be in on his lie based on his testimony? This date thing is only important if there was a gap in time between the event and MM telling his Dad and Dranov and then Paterno.
What is your theory on why Mike became convinced it happened the Friday before Spring Break?
I don’t think it was a lie. I think he was confused by the time he testified in 2010/11 and was subject to some misremembering of a few vague events.
That's easy. McQueary even testified as such. A bunch of people worked with him to try to figure out when the date was. That's the classic example of how false memories are implanted in people's minds.
When interjecting 10 years between the event and the testimony about said event, I don't put too much stock in how Mike appeared (as quoted in testimony).
Did I miss any scenarios? If not, then you are convinced the event occurred in the spring (not December), even though there is significant evidence to the contrary?
Exactly. He testified that originally he wasn't even sure whether it was 2001 or 2002 but that after working with people (the prosecution perhaps?) he was able to pin down the date. That's a classic example of how false memories are implanted.
And the OAG was careful to reverse engineer it (original claimed date) to be just within the statute of limitations. Shockingly, when they had to back off of this date, they just ignored the statute of limitations issues. Funny that...
OK but if it’s just getting the date wrong and the event and communication all happened in late December is it really much of a story? I also find it a little hard to believe those involved wouldn’t remember that it (the shower as Ziegler apparently suggests) happened and they were all told between Christmas and New Years Day.
Ok, so you acknowledge the possibility the prosecution fed him information that caused Mike to falsely believe the incident occurred the Friday before spring break. I would say there’s also a strong possibility that when the prosecution told Mike about the Aaron Fisher allegation, that caused Mike to greatly reinterpret what he witnessed 10 years earlier.
Last edited:
Well, if you’re just not going to believe any testimony then you missed all kinds of scenarios. Spaceship abductions and whatnot.
I find it hard to believe to. However, I think the most relevant piece of information is that fact that the first person to object to the March 2002 date was none other that Jerry Sandusky (it makes no sense he would correct the prosecution if he was actually guilty) and even after being proven right, was still not convinced they had the right date.
If Jerry was really guilty of assaulting a boy in the McQueary incident, he would have certainly kept quiet when the OAG got the year wrong. Remember they allegedly hadn’t even found the boy yet, so the year being off would certainly hamper the prosecutions efforts at locating the victim. It would also make the prosecutions witnesses look like fools when cross examined at trial. It makes no sense for him to correct the year unless he is innocent and feels it is in his best interest for as much truth as possible to come out.
Last edited:
I hear ya, but in this specific instance, McQ's mild reaction to Joe's question is an important aspect of the entire situation. An 'I'm ok' response is far more indicative of supporting the reasons for the measured reactions by C/S/S after he reported it.
McQ saw Joe and Tim nearly every day. Surely he was not so timid as to be concerned about being fired if he simply followed up and wanted to revisit his report.
His "f*** Sandusky" response to you a few years later would indicate that he passed up countless opportunities to speak up again, to talk it over with his Dad and Mother and wife and Dranov and even other coaches. What he saw was hardly a secret to that circle by then, I'd guess. And since there was testimony that no one was ever told to cover up or hide anything, I cannot see why, after turning this over in his mind for years, he could not bring himself to mention it again and get more advice from people he trusted. I just cannot reconcile that he was that disturbed by what he saw for a second or two that night - whenever it was - and certainly thought about it nearly every day for years, but never asked for more face time with Tim or Joe or Fran or anyone. Joe had opened that door with that basic question.
That lack of action alone tells me that C/S/S handled what was reported to them properly, given what they knew from McQ. And also that McQ really was fine with what they did at the time.
Just my opinion.
That there's not enough evidence to definitively nail down the date should put some perspective on how serious those involved believed it to be.
I have no problem at all believing that the OAG tried to manipulate the date and year to fit within the SOL. I just never understood why the late December date was important to Ziegler, unless there was separation between the event and the reporting of it by MM? To me that would damage his credibility and his state of mind on the night he saw whatever he saw. I just can’t see how Ziegler gets there without Dad and Dranov being in on it.
Similar threads
