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

[Connorpozlee]

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.

Do you think Mike, his father and Dranov conspired to make it appear that he was all shaken up when he saw them at the house the night of after calling them from the locker room? Perhaps Freeh was right about a coverup except it was to coverup to protect Mike McQueary, not the football program.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Do you think Mike, his father and Dranov conspired to make it appear that he was all shaken up when he saw them at the house the night of after calling them from the locker room? Perhaps Freeh was right about a coverup except it was to coverup to protect Mike McQueary, not the football program.

I don't know.

If you are willing to accept that this incident occurred in February (rather than December), despite evidence to the contrary, then none of this is an issue.

If the incident occurred in December, then either Mike is lying about when he first talked to his dad (i.e. perhaps not right after the incident) or all three are lying. I think I know which seems more likely.

 

[UncleLar]

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.

You would think that someone would be able to prove via photographs that they played in the tournament with McQueary post 2000, but no one has come forward with any evidence to show that they did (which is why I believe he didn't).

McQueary acknowledges being at the football game (I didn't remember that it was a flag football game, but it could have been). He says he didn't know that Sandusky was going to be there until he showed up. He says he played in the game because he made a commitment to the charity (I think it was the Easter Seals, but I'm not 100% sure) but got out of there as quick as possible once he fulfilled his commitment.

 

[Connorpozlee]

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?

Who was potentially lying? Dranov? McQueary Sr.?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I don't know.

If you are willing to accept that this incident occurred in February (rather than December), despite evidence to the contrary, then none of this is an issue.

If the incident occurred in December, then either Mike is lying about when he first talked to his dad (i.e. perhaps not right after the incident) or all three are lying. I think I know which seems more likely.

That he spoke to his dad and friend the night it happened, right?

 

[Madsol]

Or he believed, as he testified, that by speaking with Gary Schultz, who oversaw the PSU police department, that he had already reported it to the police. Have you ever heard the expression "don't fight City Hall"? It's not the least bit unreasonable to think that, having alerted three senior people at the University, i.e. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, having his father follow up with Schultz, and still seeing nothing done, that McQueary came to the conclusion that the powers to be were aligned against him. Without any clear cut options to pursue the matter further, he rightfully concludes that it would probably be personal and professional suicide to push the issue and chooses the path of least resistance, i.e doing nothing - something that I suspect 90% percent of the keyboard heroes on this board would have also done. Would it have been admirable had he made further attempts to bring down Sandusky? Certainly. It it understandable why he didn't? Absolutely.

Wow! Your defense and justification for his cowardice makes you a despicable coward yourself. What a piece of crap.

 

[UncleLar]

Wow! Your defense and justification for his cowardice makes you a despicable coward yourself. What a piece of crap.

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only don't I consider his actions cowardice, I believe his coming forward and reporting the incident to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz, knowing full well the potential ramifications of accusing an individual who was, at the time, one of the most respected members of the community, an act of courage on his part. He's one of the few individuals in this case who actually took action (Paterno being another one).

 

[PSU2UNC]

That he spoke to his dad and friend the night it happened, right?

Right.

If the incident happened in December (all three men say their conversation happened in February), either all three or lying, or Mike waited three months to talk to Dad. Either way, that's a big deal.

Or maybe there is another explanation for the December vs February date confusion, but I can't come up with one.

 

[MJG-90]

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only don't I consider his actions cowardice, I believe his coming forward and reporting the incident to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz, knowing full well the potential ramifications of accusing an individual who was, at the time, one of the most respected members of the community, an act of courage on his part.

I agree with your premise here (it taking courage). But I don't believe he told anyone he saw anything more than something he thought might be inappropriate. I don't believe he suggested it was sexual in nature, despite other quotes that came ten years later. Maybe he was a little afraid of calling out a pillar of the community in that way, so he didn't go all in with his statements. Maybe ten years later he recalled saying more than he really did. It's impossible to know for certain. I find it hard to believe there were any emails at all between Curley, Schultz and Spanier if the plan was to bury the story. It seems logical to me that Mike either wasn't very clear or he didn't say what he thinks he said.

 

[Madsol]

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only don't I consider his actions cowardice, I believe his coming forward and reporting the incident to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz, knowing full well the potential ramifications of accusing an individual who was, at the time, one of the most respected members of the community, an act of courage on his part. He's one of the few individuals in this case who actually took action (Paterno being another one).

Good on you for being self-aware. McQueary is only a tick below Sandusky in my book in being a disgusting POS. I can add you to the list. This transcends sports. This reveals all I want to know about your character. Even virtually, I don't want to have anything more to do with you. You are a vile person.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Right.

If the incident happened in December (all three men say their conversation happened in February), either all three or lying, or Mike waited three months to talk to Dad. Either way, that's a big deal.

Or maybe there is another explanation for the December vs February date confusion, but I can't come up with one.

The date is a mess and always has been. However, I have seen no reason to think that Mike did not have the conversation with his father and Dranov on a night other the night he witnessed Sandusky in a shower alone with a boy.

 

[AvgUser]

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.

Who did I quote?

Answer : Nobody.

But, in essence, that (what I suggested by the fictitious, Q&A conversation) is the takeaway from whatever actually happened. Mike was ok, cool, not bothered, not anxious, not anything that suggested he was a dry, upset, or thinking the entire situation was mishandled to his detriment.

 

[MJG-90]

The date is a mess and always has been. However, I have seen no reason to think that Mike did not have the conversation with his father and Dranov on a night other the night he witnessed Sandusky in a shower alone with a boy.

Agreed. If anything, he talked to doc and dad that night, but waited to talk to Paterno. Who knows. Unless someone who does know starts talking, we're likely to never know for certain.

 

[NoBareFeet]

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.

Not sure that Dr. Dranov and his Dad have to be lying in this scenario. They could have advised Mike to talk to Joe about this. Maybe even advised him to talk to Joe the very next day about this, but for whatever reason Mike didn't until February 9. Dad and Dr. Dranov might honestly think it happened in February 2001 now. After all, they were told that by the prosecution. I can see not remembering the exact dates.

 

[L.A.Lion]

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only don't I consider his actions cowardice, I believe his coming forward and reporting the incident to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz, knowing full well the potential ramifications of accusing an individual who was, at the time, one of the most respected members of the community, an act of courage on his part. He's one of the few individuals in this case who actually took action (Paterno being another one).

If memory serves me, there’s at least one person who posted under the moniker “Townie” (or something like that) on TOS claiming to be close to the McQueary family and also claiming repeatedly over a sustained period of time that Sandusky’s proclivity toward young boys was actually an open secret in the State College/Centre County area. I don’t remember if he used “open secret” or not, but the gist of his postings was that people (well, at least some people) openly talked about Sandusky and how he shouldn’t be left alone around kids. I also don’t recall if he confined his claims of widespread whispering to after 2001 or if people talked about Sandusky’s odd behavior around boys in the 80s or 90s. You’ve been around SC for a long time, right? Have any observations or ever hear anything as a member of the community you’d like to share?

 

[UncleLar]

Who did I quote?

Answer : Nobody.

But, in essence, that (what I suggested by the fictitious, Q&A conversation) is the takeaway from whatever actually happened. Mike was ok, cool, not bothered, not anxious, not anything that suggested he was a dry, upset, or thinking the entire situation was mishandled to his detriment.

Or he responded the way that most males would when someone questions about whether they are having a difficult time or not, i.e they say "I'm okay" even when they aren't.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Not sure that Dr. Dranov and his Dad have to be lying in this scenario. They could have advised Mike to talk to Joe about this. Maybe even advised him to talk to Joe the very next day about this, but for whatever reason Mike didn't until February 9. Dad and Dr. Dranov might honestly think it happened in February 2001 now. After all, they were told that by the prosecution. I can see not remembering the exact dates.

I guess that's possible, although didn't Dranov cross paths with Schultz or Curley at point after and they briefly discussed this? I fee like if there was a big gap in time, that would have come up.

Similarly, I have to imagine if Dad told Mike to talk to Joe that Dad wouldn't have asked Mike how that conversation went.

 

[UncleLar]

If memory serves me, there’s at least one person who posted under the moniker “Townie” (or something like that) on TOS claiming to be close to the McQueary family and also claiming repeatedly over a sustained period of time that Sandusky’s proclivity toward young boys was actually an open secret in the State College/Centre County area. I don’t remember if he used “open secret” or not, but the gist of his postings was that people (well, at least some people) openly talked about Sandusky and how he shouldn’t be left alone around kids. I also don’t recall if he confined his claims of widespread whispering to after 2001 or if people talked about Sandusky’s odd behavior around boys in the 80s or 90s. You’ve been around SC for a long time, right? Have any observations or ever hear anything as a member of the community you’d like to share?

I did hear a rumor a year or so before the Sandusky news broke that he was being investigated. At the time, I thought that this was likely a result of a false accusation because it's not the least bit unusual for someone dealing with troubledyouth to be falsely accused of stuff (he hadn't shown up at a Second Mile golf tournament function and that's what seemed to be what precipitated the rumor) . I never heard anything that would have led me to believe that Sandusky was truly a pedophile. One of my best friends, who is privy to all sorts of inside info around SC, had been asked to be on the Second Mile Board of Directors right around that time. If there was any "open secret" about Sandusky, I'm sure he would have heard it and there is no way that he would have agreed to sit on the board.

 

[UncleLar]

Good on you for being self-aware. McQueary is only a tick below Sandusky in my book in being a disgusting POS. I can add you to the list. This transcends sports. This reveals all I want to know about your character. Even virtually, I don't want to have anything more to do with you. You are a vile person.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

It was definitely discussed on message boards, at least in private rooms.

That's where Howard Stern found out about it. (Not THE Howard Stern, but the alti nickname that led OAG to MMQ).

 

[Connorpozlee]

Or he responded the way that most males would when someone questions about whether they are having a difficult time or not, i.e they say "I'm okay" even when they aren't.

Even at the thought of a boy being molested? Not sure I agree with you on this one.

 

[RussianEagle]

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

Sorry about that!

Did Ray give you credit?

 

[Mixolydian]

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only don't I consider his actions cowardice, I believe his coming forward and reporting the incident to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz, knowing full well the potential ramifications of accusing an individual who was, at the time, one of the most respected members of the community, an act of courage on his part. He's one of the few individuals in this case who actually took action (Paterno being another one).

You’re right that is worse. He was the only “individual in this case” who was actually the witness. If he saw what he testified to seeing, it took zero courage and in fact it was incumbent upon him to go report it to the police that very night while the child “victim” was still in harm’s way.

You’re clearly too close to the Big Red Dope to think straight. I think you’re still enamored with McQueary and his dick pic. Get a f’ing grip. Actually in your case maybe I should rephrase that....

 

[YYZ86]

You’re right that is worse. He was the only “individual in this case” who was actually the witness. If he saw what he testified to seeing, it took zero courage and in fact it was incumbent upon him to go report it to the police that very night while the child “victim” was still in harm’s way.

You’re clearly too close to the Big Red Dope to think straight. I think you’re still enamored with McQueary and his dick pic. Get a f’ing grip. Actually in your case maybe I should rephrase that....

He is also I believe the only person who would be arrested (other than Sandusky) if the entire event happened today.

 

[Mixolydian]

He is also I believe the only person who would be arrested (other than Sandusky) if the entire event happened today.

Other than Sandusky himself, nobody is more responsible for what happened to PSU as a result of this fiasco than Mike McQueary. He either embellished/lied on the stand, or was a coward a decade earlier and f’d the administrators, JVP and the University and football program in the process. There is no way around that.

 

[UncleLar]

Who did I quote?

Answer : Nobody.

But, in essence, that (what I suggested by the fictitious, Q&A conversation) is the takeaway from whatever actually happened. Mike was ok, cool, not bothered, not anxious, not anything that suggested he was a dry, upset, or thinking the entire situation was mishandled to his detriment.

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

 

[nits74]

Other than Sandusky himself, nobody is more responsible for what happened to PSU as a result of this fiasco than Mike McQueary. He either embellished/lied on the stand, or was a coward a decade earlier and f’d the administrators, JVP and the University and football program in the process. There is no way around that.

And he profited financially from all of this.

 

[ouirpsu]

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

Not only is this a red herring, it seems like you're actively trying to keep this specific issue alive for reasons that are pretty obvious. I'm curious...by any chance, do you have a red-headed nephew living in State College?

 

[L.A.Lion]

It was definitely discussed on message boards, at least in private rooms.

That's where Howard Stern found out about it. (Not THE Howard Stern, but the alti nickname that led OAG to MMQ).

The “Townie” poster was interested in cementing the narrative that CSS had more than enough info to take steps much stronger than the warning delivered by Curley and invoked alleged common knowledge in the community in support of his argument and in support of MM against CSS. I was trying to get at whispers prior to 2001 and not caused by MM himself to ground truth what I recall to be Townie’s story (maybe it was Towny87 on TOS?).

OK, I did a quick search and he posted here as Towny87.1 and I believe Towny87 on TOS and is likely McQueary’s brother-in-law. I don’t recall reading much of his posting here but apparently he still sticks his head in from time to time to argue with people; he was here arguing about Dec. 29, 2000 versus Feb. 2001 as recently as 2017.

 

[YYZ86]

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

The last sentence is dripping with irony given the fact that just about everyone else wasn't happy with the way MM handled it as well.

 

[AvgUser]

Or he responded the way that most males would when someone questions about whether they are having a difficult time or not, i.e they say "I'm okay" even when they aren't.

You’re incredulous here. You want people to believe that mike was distraught over hearing a boy raped and he’s afraid to say “no I’m not ok”. You argue both with and against yourself.


Cue up Matt Millen voice track wrt mcQ: That’s on him

 

[Bob78]

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

I don't agree that that is the correct conclusion to draw. How do you get from "I'm okay" to "I'm not happy with the way this was handled"?

JVP's question opened the door for McQ to address the situation again.

Giving McQ a pass for answering the question the way you think most males would answer it is dubious rationale at best.

Why not, like most men or women would like to think they would do, do the right thing and say 'I'm not generally ok with the whole thing, Joe. I'd like to talk with Tim and Gary again about what I saw and why I'm not ok with what they did or did not do. I talked it over with my Dad (which I bet happened a few times post the initial conversation, especially if he was so upset), and we both think it needs to be investigated more deeply. What if something really bad is happening, beyond what I saw? Let's be sure'.

Mike may or may not have done the right thing right away by reporting 'something'. Maybe yes if he was timely and truthful. Maybe not if he wasn't timely (not my argument here) and didn't give a full description of what he observed, matching what he claimed years later. Certainly not if he remained upset by it and did not re-address it with anyone who could look into it more deeply. This had to be on his mind nearly every day of his life after that night. How did he reconcile not doing more about it with himself?

C/S/S and JVP took what seemingly little info they had from McQ and did what they could with it. Rakovitz did nothing. Any TSM Board members who learned of it (e.g. Heim) did nothing excpet enable it, maybe unwittingly. They had far more power to do something with it than any of the PSU folks did. If McQ knew more than he let on, shame on him. If he fumed over this for years without re-addressing it, shame on him. If he spoke to his Mother and Dad and wife about it after the initial conversation and they felt it was more than something disconcerting that happened in the shower, shame on all of them for not taking Mike by the hand and going to see Harmon or Tim again or Spanier or whoever, especially after Joe opened the door for him to do so.

 

[Osprey Lion]

Except...

JoePa: Mike how are you doing? Are you satisfied with how The Lasch has incident was handled

McQ: yeah, I’m cool.

This is the message you guy's should be pushing to the general public who doesn't believe Paterno did enough. Just tell them that MM was satisfied and Joe will be a hero, the statue will go back up and Beaver Stadium will be renamed. Get yourselves some t-shirts and bumper stickers that say, "Mike was Satisfied".

 

[KnightSlayer]

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

How would your well being be if you reported a child being sexually assaulted and nothing was done about it. Joe gave McQueary an opening to talk. That was another opportunity for McQueary to show an ounce of courage and he came up small again.

How about a simple; I'm doing okay coach, I just don't understand why Sandusky was never charged for raping that kid in the shower.

 

[UncleLar]

Not only is this a red herring, it seems like you're actively trying to keep this specific issue alive for reasons that are pretty obvious. I'm curious...by any chance, do you have a red-headed nephew living in State College?

I'm a believer in truth, not false narratives - although that seems to be a virtue that isn't held in any kind of high regard these days.

FTR - I am not related to McQueary (he also no longer lives in State College). He was a casual acquaintance of mine when he lived here, i.e. we knew each other by name. I would occasionally run into him at the Tavern Restaurant. The Adam's Apple was my go-to spot in State College (witness my avatar). McQueary was dating and later married one of the waitresses. so we'd occasionally see each other there and engage in conversation (I also knew several of the other football staff that he used to run around with so our conversations tended to be group conversations). That's pretty much the extent of our relationship.

 

[UncleLar]

I don't agree that that is the correct conclusion to draw. How do you get from "I'm okay" to "I'm not happy with the way this was handled"?

JVP's question opened the door for McQ to address the situation again.

Giving McQ a pass for answering the question the way you think most males would answer it is dubious rationale at best.

Why not, like most men or women would like to think they would do, do the right thing and say 'I'm not generally ok with the whole thing, Joe. I'd like to talk with Tim and Gary again about what I saw and why I'm not ok with what they did or did not do. I talked it over with my Dad (which I bet happened a few times post the initial conversation, especially if he was so upset), and we both think it needs to be investigated more deeply. What if something really bad is happening, beyond what I saw? Let's be sure'.

Mike may or may not have done the right thing right away by reporting 'something'. Maybe yes if he was timely and truthful. Maybe not if he wasn't timely (not my argument here) and didn't give a full description of what he observed, matching what he claimed years later. Certainly not if he remained upset by it and did not re-address it with anyone who could look into it more deeply. This had to be on his mind nearly every day of his life after that night. How did he reconcile not doing more about it with himself?

C/S/S and JVP took what seemingly little info they had from McQ and did what they could with it. Rakovitz did nothing. Any TSM Board members who learned of it (e.g. Heim) did nothing excpet enable it, maybe unwittingly. They had far more power to do something with it than any of the PSU folks did. If McQ knew more than he let on, shame on him. If he fumed over this for years without re-addressing it, shame on him. If he spoke to his Mother and Dad and wife about it after the initial conversation and they felt it was more than something disconcerting that happened in the shower, shame on all of them for not taking Mike by the hand and going to see Harmon or Tim again or Spanier or whoever, especially after Joe opened the door for him to do so.

I agree that it could be a stretch. I just wonder why the attorney went out of his way to make sure that McQueary's response was only to cover his general well-being. One reason would be that he wasn't okay with the way that it was handled.

 

[WyomingLion]

I agree that it could be a stretch. I just wonder why the attorney went out of his way to make sure that McQueary's response was only to cover his general well-being. One reason would be that he wasn't okay with the way that it was handled.

Because as McQueary’s attorney it is his job to place Mike in the best light possible....it’s his job. That doesn’t mean it is what really transpired.

 

[UncleLar]

Because as McQueary’s attorney it is his job to place Mike in the best light possible....it’s his job. That doesn’t mean it is what really transpired.

Fair enough.

 

[PSUPride1]

And what I am suggesting is that the only thing that should be taken away from the conversation is that McQueary told Paterno his "general well-being" was okay. You are incorrectly reading something into the testimony that just wasn't there. McQueary's attorney went out of his way to be sure to clarify that Paterno's question and McQueary's response was only in regard to his personal well-being. He did that to be sure that people didn't mistakenly think that McQueary was okay with the way that is was handled. But what you and others do by posting fictitious conversations like you did is reinforce a false narrative that McQueary testified he was okay with the way that things were handled. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that because McQueary's attorney had Mike clarify that the okay remark was solely in reference to his general well-being, the correct conclusion to draw would be that he wasn't happy with the way that Curley and Schultz handled it.

Poor Mike. Then he should have said no, I'm not ok, especially about how my js report was handled. But he didn't because he's a turd. Mike should know he's a disgrace, any which way one tries to spin his actions.
And I always refer people to dranov's account of what Mike reported the night of the incident in Joe Posnanski's book on page 276. Mike said he didn't see anything and all three agreed there was nothing to go to the police with based on Mike's information.
Mike was more concerned about his dick pics than js. Mike can go to hell.

 

[PSUPride1]

How would your well being be if you reported a child being sexually assaulted and nothing was done about it. Joe gave McQueary an opening to talk. That was another opportunity for McQueary to show an ounce of courage and he came up small again.

How about a simple; I'm doing okay coach, I just don't understand why Sandusky was never charged for raping that kid in the shower.

Exactly.