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

[RussianEagle]

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.

That’s the whole point. It does damage Mikes credibility, which was already weak to begin with.

I actually was the first person to suggest to Ziegler that maybe Mike waited more than a day (though I was thinking maybe 2-7 days, not 6 weeks). I made that suggestion after reading Ray Blehar’s blog post on the Barenaked Ladies concert, and recognizing that fact that Sandusky had for years said the incident happened before Feb 9 and had denied being in Lasch on that date when first confronted by Tim Curley. Ziegler actually thought I was crazy at first, but came around after talking to Sandusky and Gary Schultz.

As for Dranov and John McQueary being in on it. Again, my thought is that they had only vague memories and pretty much went with Mike’s story. And since the police chose not to charge either, they had no reason to think any deeper.

 

[pandaczar12]

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?

Good question. It's also possible that Mike was potentially very vague about when it happened. Did Joe ever say that Mike told him it occurred the night before?

So you think he was visibly shaken 6 weeks after the fact? That seems hard to believe.

Have you ever seen a move or TV show where someone was visibly shaken? I find nothing related to Mike hard to believe. We are talking about the guy that either 1) witnessed a teen being abused and did nothing, or 2) knows no abuse occurred and witnessed C/S/S/P having their reputations destroyed and did nothing.

Also remember that it was a very short, maybe 3 minute conversation. How do you think that went? "Wow thanks for that 2.5 minute account, it's a very serious, you did the right thing coming to me. You appear visibly shaken... not GTF out, I have a football season to plan for."

 

[UncleLar]

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.

Yes it's possible, maybe even likely, that McQueary reinterpreted what he witnessed. But, as I said earlier, my personal interaction with McQueary predated his interaction with the state investigators. So, whatever it was that he witnessed, I believe, affected him deeply even before the prosecution got hold of him.

 

[Yanks49]

Yes it's possible, maybe even likely, that McQueary reinterpreted what he witnessed. But, as I said earlier, my personal interaction with McQueary predated his interaction with the state investigators. So, whatever it was that he witnessed, I believe, affected him deeply even before the prosecution got hold of him.

Not enough. Or else he wouldn't (edit: shouldn't) have participated in golf outing(s).

 

[Mixolydian]

Yes it's possible, maybe even likely, that McQueary reinterpreted what he witnessed. But, as I said earlier, my personal interaction with McQueary predated his interaction with the state investigators. So, whatever it was that he witnessed, I believe, affected him deeply even before the prosecution got hold of him.

But not deeply enough to report it to police immediately and make sure that the kid being “sodomized” wasn’t left alone that night with the pedophile? Sorry, not buying.

 

[Mixolydian]

That’s the whole point. It does damage Mikes credibility, which was already weak to begin with.

I actually was the first person to suggest to Ziegler that maybe Mike waited more than a day (though I was thinking maybe 2-7 days, not 6 weeks). I made that suggestion after reading Ray Blehar’s blog post on the Barenaked Ladies concert, and recognizing that fact that Sandusky had for years said the incident happened before Feb 9 and had denied being in Lasch on that date when first confronted by Tim Curley. Ziegler actually thought I was crazy at first, but came around after talking to Sandusky and Gary Schultz.

As for Dranov and John McQueary being in on it. Again, my thought is that they had only vague memories and pretty much went with Mike’s story. And since the police chose not to charge either, they had no reason to think any deeper.

Was it ever confirmed that Paterno attended a Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh (February) on the same day MM came to him?

 

[PSU2UNC]

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.

The date (December vs spring break) IS only important because it suggests a delay in reporting. I think it is more likely that Mike told no one until months later. Then he hears about open WR Coach position, pretends he just saw what he saw and calls his dad.

 

[indynittany]

Was it ever confirmed that Paterno attended a Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh (February) on the same day MM came to him?

I have never heard that refuted by anyone.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Well, if you’re just not going to believe any testimony then you missed all kinds of scenarios. Spaceship abductions and whatnot.

Have you ever served on a jury? An important part of that is evaluating testimony.

For example:

1) Does this testimony contradict other testimony?

2) Does this testimony contradict other known facts?

3) Is the testimony internally consistent?

4) Is the witness believable?

If you just take all testimony on face value....well, that's a problem.

Not all testimony is created equal.

 

[WyomingLion]

The date of the incident is only important if talking to Joe was delayed. The more important fact is that Dr. D, Mr. McQueary or Mike considered it important enough to call the police. Dr. D testified that he didn’t think what Mike told him warranted reporting to authorities. That pretty much says it all in my opinion.

 

[Mixolydian]

The date (December vs spring break) IS only important because it suggests a delay in reporting. I think it is more likely that Mike told no one until months later. Then he hears about open WR Coach position, pretends he just saw what he saw and calls his dad.

I guess that’s possible. Still raises the issue that he would have had to have known Sandusky didn’t have an alibi. Once he reported it to Paterno, he had no way of knowing for sure that a police investigation wasn’t going to occur.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[RussianEagle]

Was it ever confirmed that Paterno attended a Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh (February) on the same day MM came to him?

Yes!

https://gopsusports.com/news/2001/2...Into_Pittsburgh_Hall_of_Fame_on_Saturday.aspx

 

[PSU2UNC]

I guess that’s possible. Still raises the issue that he would have had to have known Sandusky didn’t have an alibi. Once he reported it to Paterno, he had no way of knowing for sure that a police investigation wasn’t going to occur.

That's a fair point. Although Mike doesn't strike me of someone capable of planning an "Oceans 11" level heist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find some flaws in his plan.

Again, if the incident did occur in December (rather than in the spring), I fail to see any scenario where this isn't a huge deal (i.e. either Mike delayed telling anyone or all three men lied).

 

[Mixolydian]

That's a fair point. Although Mike doesn't strike me of someone capable of planning an "Oceans 11" level heist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find some flaws in his plan.

Again, if the incident did occur in December (rather than in the spring), I fail to see any scenario where this isn't a huge deal (i.e. either Mike delayed telling anyone or all three men lied).

Exactly

 

[francofan]

Was it ever confirmed that Paterno attended a Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh (February) on the same day MM came to him?

Yes, I believe it has been shown that Joe went to the Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh on Feb. 10, 2001.

 

[Mixolydian]

Yes, I believe it has been shown that Joe went to the Dapper Dan event in Pittsburgh on Feb. 10, 2001.

The rest of the question is was it confirmed that was the same day MM came to him? Did Joe testify as such?

I’m still fascinated/perplexed by the alleged (by Ziegler) separation in dates between event and reporting.

 

[RussianEagle]

View embedded media

What is really odd is that Ray Blehar acknowledges it’s likely McQueary got the date wrong (his blog broke the news about the BNL concert), but still thinks Sandusky’s is lying about V2 being Allan Myers.

 

[RussianEagle]

The rest of the question is was it confirmed that was the same day MM came to him? Did Joe testify as such?

I’m still fascinated/perplexed by the alleged (by Ziegler) separation in dates between event and reporting.

The emails/notes of Curley and Schultz prove McQueary went to Joe on the morning of February 10.

 

[Mixolydian]

What is really odd is that Ray Blehar acknowledges it’s likely McQueary got the date wrong (his blog broke the news about the BNL concert), but still thinks Sandusky’s is lying about V2 being Allan Myers.

I never agreed with Ray’s thinking on V2.

 

[francofan]

What is really odd is that Ray Blehar acknowledges it’s likely McQueary got the date wrong (his blog broke the news about the BNL concert), but still thinks Sandusky’s is lying about V2 being Allan Myers.

Ray is invested in Jerry Sandusky being 100% guilty and assigning blame to the second mile as opposed to Penn State.

He has admitted that some of the accusers are charlatans and that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial, but he just can't fathom that Jim Clemente might be wrong about Sandusky being a pillar of community CSA offender.

I think Ray realizes that if Myers is shown to be v2, then the case against Sandusky falls apart. However, He doesn't even have a plausible story that somebody else might be v2.

I think it is even more remarkable that the OAG still claims that v2 is unknown, and if v2 is still alive, it most certainly isn't Myers. If it becomes evident that Myers is v2; then, at a minimum, Sandusky should be entitled to a new trial. It may take a federal judge to make that determination because I think the state of Pennsylvania at this point is incapable of making that call and calling a spade a spade.

 

[UncleLar]

Not enough. Or else he wouldn't (edit: shouldn't) have participated in golf outing(s).

That's another one of those oft repeated stories that I have yet to see substantiated. Sandusky's attorneys tried to impeach McQueary's testimony by presenting a list of "invited" participants that had McQueary's name on it. That backfired when the tournament director stated that the list was only people who were invited and did not represent those who had played. He then went on to add that if McQueary had played in the tournament, he would have remembered it but that he has no memory of Mike being there. The conclusion being that Mike didn't play in the event.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Good question. It's also possible that Mike was potentially very vague about when it happened. Did Joe ever say that Mike told him it occurred the night before?



Have you ever seen a move or TV show where someone was visibly shaken? I find nothing related to Mike hard to believe. We are talking about the guy that either 1) witnessed a teen being abused and did nothing, or 2) knows no abuse occurred and witnessed C/S/S/P having their reputations destroyed and did nothing.

Also remember that it was a very short, maybe 3 minute conversation. How do you think that went? "Wow thanks for that 2.5 minute account, it's a very serious, you did the right thing coming to me. You appear visibly shaken... not GTF out, I have a football season to plan for."

Again, I am referring to his conversation with his father and Dranov.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Have you ever served on a jury? An important part of that is evaluating testimony.

For example:

1) Does this testimony contradict other testimony?

2) Does this testimony contradict other known facts?

3) Is the testimony internally consistent?

4) Is the witness believable?

If you just take all testimony on face value....well, that's a problem.

Not all testimony is created equal.

So we are now refuting that McQueary was shaken up the night he reported it to his father? I haven’t heard that discussed before. Where does that belief come from?

 

[NoBareFeet]

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.

My assumption is that Mike witnessed the incident on 12/29/2000, talked to his Dad and Dr. Dranov about it that night, but didn't report it to Joe until 2/9/2001. However, unless I'm mistaken, no one knows this for sure (other than Mike).

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Has anyone but Jerry claimed Allan showered with Jerry in Lasch in 2000 or 2001?

Mike doesn't claim to recognize Allan.

Allan himself hasn't claimed a shower incident outside of 2002.

Ray is right.

 

[Yanks49]

That's another one of those oft repeated stories that I have yet to see substantiated. Sandusky's attorneys tried to impeach McQueary's testimony by presenting a list of "invited" participants that had McQueary's name on it. That backfired when the tournament director stated that the list was only people who were invited and did not represent those who had played. He then went on to add that if McQueary had played in the tournament, he would have remembered it but that he has no memory of Mike being there. The conclusion being that Mike didn't play in the event.

As a follow-up witness, a Second Mile administrator named Henry Lesch explained that he had been in charge of the annual golf tournament, in which Mike McQueary had played in June 2001 and 2003.
Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/08/penn-state-confidential-what-mike.html#QY9um39T3Xh77GDD.99

 

[PSU2UNC]

My assumption is that Mike witnessed the incident on 12/29/2000, talked to his Dad and Dr. Dranov about it that night, but didn't report it to Joe until 2/9/2001. However, unless I'm mistaken, no one knows this for sure (other than Mike).

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but that the involves Mike, Dad and Dranov all being in on the lie that this happened in Feb. Not impossible, but tough for me to wrap my mind around.

 

[francofan]

As a follow-up witness, a Second Mile administrator named Henry Lesch explained that he had been in charge of the annual golf tournament, in which Mike McQueary had played in June 2001 and 2003.
Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/08/penn-state-confidential-what-mike.html#QY9um39T3Xh77GDD.99

Ralph Cipriano and his bigtrial blog has had the best, most insightful easy-to-understand reporting of any blogs or other media/news outlets on the Penn State/Sandusky fiasco imho.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Has anyone but Jerry claimed Allan showered with Jerry in Lasch in 2000 or 2001?

Mike doesn't claim to recognize Allan.

Allan himself hasn't claimed a shower incident outside of 2002.

Ray is right.

Mike didn't recognize someone who he saw as a much younger person, from a moderate distance in a three second glance? You don't say....

LOL.

I think Ray has done some really good research, but I think he is wrong here.

 

[PSU2UNC]

So we are now refuting that McQueary was shaken up the night he reported it to his father? I haven’t heard that discussed before. Where does that belief come from?

I'm saying that his father reporting him as being shaken up does not definitively confirm that the incident happened as the same night as the conversation.

 

[Chris92]

What is really odd is that Ray Blehar acknowledges it’s likely McQueary got the date wrong (his blog broke the news about the BNL concert), but still thinks Sandusky’s is lying about V2 being Allan Myers.

It wasn't Blehar that broke the concert news, it was here first.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...ultz-plead-guilty.169383/page-19#post-2694796

 

[ChiTownLion]

Good questions by Wendy from Ray's blog.

 

[UncleLar]

As a follow-up witness, a Second Mile administrator named Henry Lesch explained that he had been in charge of the annual golf tournament, in which Mike McQueary had played in June 2001 and 2003.
Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/08/penn-state-confidential-what-mike.html#QY9um39T3Xh77GDD.99

Thanks for posting that. I couldn't remember when that testimony took place. That is EXACTLY the situation that I referenced and the author of the article conveniently ignored the cross examination of Lesch.

Here's WGAL's covered Lesch's testimony.

The defense then called Henry Lesh, who was in charge of overall operations of Second Mile golf tournaments. He showed a letter to Mike McQueary thanking him for attending a tournament in June 2003, along with an undated picture of McQueary at a golf tournament.

On cross examination, Lesh said he couldn't tell if McQueary was at the 2003 golf tournament from the records he had. He said sometimes people would register for the tournament and not show up. Lesh said, "I would have recalled people who played … McQueary wasn't one of them."

In other words, despite the letter thanking him for playing, McQueary didn't actually play in the tournament.

Despite sworn testimony saying McQueary didn't play in the tournament, the rumors persist that he did. This is exactly the stuff I have issues with. The false narrative takes on a life of its own.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'm saying that his father reporting him as being shaken up does not definitively confirm that the incident happened as the same night as the conversation.

It would be way out of the norm for him to still be shaken up weeks after the incident. Didn’t he call his father from the locker room before talking to him the same night?

 

[Chris92]

"I would have recalled people who played … McQueary wasn't one of them."

How many years did TSM have a golf tournament? This guy can remember year to year who played? With a memory like that, is that guy available for hire?

 

[PSU2UNC]

It would be way out of the norm for him to still be shaken up weeks after the incident. Didn’t he call his father from the locker room before talking to him the same night?

Couple of things:

1) The testimony of Dad and Dranov did characterize Mike as shaken up; that doesn't mean they are remembering correctly (again 10 years later) or that might wasn't nervous about lying (if in fact he waited 3 months to tell them).

2) He claims he called Dad from the locker room immediately after. That doesn't mean it happened that way. We have never seen phone records to verify that call. Which I find odd.

 

[Yanks49]

The defense then called Henry Lesh, who was in charge of overall operations of Second Mile golf tournaments. He showed a letter to Mike McQueary thanking him for attending a tournament in June 2003, along with an undated picture of McQueary at a golf tournament.

Despite sworn testimony saying McQueary didn't play in the tournament, the rumors persist that he did.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sure would be nice to have a definitive answer to this, considering there certainly should be pictures and a record of who played. Same with the flag football game.

 

[pandaczar12]

Again, I am referring to his conversation with his father and Dranov.

And this is according to who?

So we should trust one of the people potentially lying about the incident because they can't be lying because Mike was visibly shaken?

 

[pandaczar12]

My assumption is that Mike witnessed the incident on 12/29/2000, talked to his Dad and Dr. Dranov about it that night, but didn't report it to Joe until 2/9/2001. However, unless I'm mistaken, no one knows this for sure (other than Mike).

It's a shame that Mike isn't still around to correct the record...