"A source with knowledge of his testimony told The Patriot-News that Dranov testified before the grand jury that McQueary repeatedly said he did not see anything happening in the shower."
PennLive 12.17.11
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
PennLive 12.17.11
Wouldn’t a kid that people don’t believe be the perfect type of kid to target as a victim if you were a sexual predator?
Ziegler has no credibility as an investigator. His narrative depends on his having access to tapes that he "won't" release. BS
Are you John McQueary?
Again you're making such a subtle distinction at what @PSU2UNC commented about it is beyond trivial and inconsequential. The point is, McQ saw diddly-poop! Dranov drill him with the question three times.
Thanks I believe I read a different account than the one posted before the posted one here. It has been awhile so wanted clarification. It seems people gave differing testimony at various times but we already knew that. Mike’s Dad even seemed to get amnesia on the stand.
I don’t know about that, but I would think that someone that people don’t believe would be more likely to be a charlatan who would make up stories of CSA for financial gain than someone who has a trustworthy reputation.
Find one post of mine where I didn’t defend Joe Paterno. You can have from now until the end of mankind to find it. Just don’t post again until you do. Deal?
Is what he said or what he did the most important? A mandated reporter, pillar of the community heard what MM had to say....what he saw and or what he heard......and what was his reaction? Call the police? Call CYS? NO. Make an administrative report with Joe. Sounds precisely like Dranov heard a report of a child being raped.LOL
How do you get through life in your black and white world? Or are you purposely obtuse? If you piece together what McQueary testified he did not see (no erection, no insertion, no apparent distress from the kid) with Dranov’s testimony that MM only came back to the sounds, it’s perfectly reasonable for one to infer that he did not SEE a sexual act. That is different than him thinking he may have walked in on one. Certainly every single person he told in 2001 reacted as if he didn’t see one. Even the jury that convicted him of just about everything didn’t find him guilty of the most serious charge vav V2.
Which is exactly what a sexual predator would want people to think.
By dumb luck, the PSU Police Services page is web archived for February 13, 2001. Help a brother out, I'm searching everywhere and can't find where it says to call JVP.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010213233846/http://www.psu.edu/dept/police/
Whenever and whatever Mike saw or heard: Dad and Dr.D got the report and they decided that the proper course of action was to simply make an "administrative" report to Mike's supervisor, JVP.
Mike had a very brief meeting with JVP (unless someone here wants to step up and call Sue a liar). JVP listened and felt it best to file an "administrative" report to his supervisors. Tim and Gary met with Mike and after hearing what he said felt that the best course of action was to file an "administrative" report with Sandusky's employer.
10 years later, an ex cop who is probably connected somehow with a prosecutors husband and hates Joe.....sends an immaculate email to CC DA the morning after Tommy Boy is elected.....LOL and wait for it.........the incident that occurred 10 years ago is a multiple felony crime.
The whole thing has a foundation of bullshit. I don't know if JS is guilty or not. But this shower thing was a nothing burger until certain folks needed the focus to be on PSU. Keep in mind.....these are charges like so many in this case, that have no victim. You can't even get a murder conviction without a corpse. The Commonwealth LOL.
If the phantom child in the shower was cause for Tim, Gary and Graham to be convicted of endangering the welfare of a child......how does Dranov skate....a mandated reporter? Didn't Dr. Jack say under oath that Tim reported the incident to the right person? I believe he did. Curious.
Your initial point about this is an interesting take, and worthy of further thought. However, JS or whoever the predator is would need to know that level of detail about the person and plot their scheme around that premise. We don't know whether or not JS knew that about the kid, or whether he preyed on that aspect of any possible victims. He worked with a lot of troubled youths - and, yes, therein lies the potential issue - and from all accounts he stressed honesty and many other positive qualities as part of the TSM methodology. I think we tend lose sight of the fact that TSM staff did a lot of good with kids who needed help, and forget there were a lot more people involved with the kids than just JS.
I place a lot of blame on Rakovitz for ignoring Tim's concern, but interestingly, most of the folks directly involved who I've spoken with don't.
So, while you raise an interesting point, I don't think I'd hang my hat on that being a key element of JS's predatory (if so) tactics.
LOL. So you think Sandusky interviews friends and family of all his potential victims to find the liars?
So you think he put that much effort into his crimes, yet didn’t think that raping a kid in a public shower on a busy Friday night would get him caught?
Conversely, wouldn’t a naive, touchy feely, kids charity founder be the perfect guy to target in a fake child abuse case?
I would think the “perfect” kid for a sexual predator to target for compliant male-on-male sexual activity would be effeminate boys, but Sandusky’s alleged “victims” are all the complete opposite.
A child care professional, one who its fair to presume knew JS better than all of us combined.....responded to JS being banned at PSU by getting him keys to a fitness center at a local hotel. Chew on that one.
Doesn’t everybody say Jerry was like a father to him? He certainly knew about the kid and his reputation.
You don’t think a sexual predator would like to prey upon somebody people won’t believe? That’s naive Indy.
Last edited:
And it was all for nothing. Because in the entire 33 year history of the 2nd mile, there was not even one case of a child telling anyone he was sexually abused by Sandusky, only to be not believed.
As someone else said, that is a big stretch. He did not necessarily know that level of detail about a kid's life prior to knowing him through TSM, or even after getting to know him. He may or may not have had input from teachers and a parent to that level. So 'certainly' is certainly not an appropriate phrase here.
On your second point, absolutely.
Look, I’m just making the point that an untrustworthy teen makes the perfect target for a sexual predator.
That’s not what I said, but you think Jerry Sandusky didn’t know all about these kids?
Actually, probably not. If the predator is depending on the kid to keep quiet, and asks him to not talk about what is happening, he cannot necessarily trust an untrustworthy kid to keep his word on that.
From what I've read in the aftermath of the JS deal, a predator would want the quiet, not-self-confident kid who would be too shy and afraid to share that. I could be wrong on that, but I think that was in something I read a few years ago. There are folks on here who are in this line of work and would know better.
Untrustworthy teens, especially ones from broken homes, are likely also prone to violence, and may be more likely to attack someone who is trying to sexually abuse them. But that did not happen.
Because they are more likely to be gay and more likely to comply with sexual acts from another male.
Call me crazy but I don’t think most teenage boys will allow an old man to give them blowjobs, even after receiving church clothes, used golf clubs, old computers about to be thrown away, and PSU tickets during a time they weren’t even that good.
I’m not saying he would have known detail about the boys before working with them. He absolutely would have known that information after working them.
There is enough BS in this whole case, any reasonable person should question the whole f'in thing.
Words such as 'certainly' and 'absolutely' are very out of place with this whole saga.
I say a predator needs trustworthy targets.
Infer all you want. Just don't make false statements when you do. To state that Dranov testified that McQueary answered NO when asked if he witnessed a sexual act is a false statement, likely unwittingly made by many since it's so oft repeated, but false all the same.
Last edited:
Just for the record. If you read the law that was in place at the time of the incident, Dranov wouldn't have been a mandated reporter. The law, at the time, required that physicians who suspected a child under their care was being abused were mandated to report the abuse. Since Dranov had no reason to believe that this child was a patient of his, he didn't have a mandate to report. That said, the prosecution certainly went out of their way to stretch the law to try to hang Curley, Schultz, and Spanier and they probably could have tried the same with Dranov had they chosen to do so. That law has since been changed and, under the law in place now, Dranov would likely be required to report his conversation with McQueary.
Last edited:
However, as a mandated reporter in some cases, Dranov would know enough to tell McQ to report a crime directly to the police or to call a hotline, not seek out the nearest Division I football coach.
Similar threads
