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

[Mixolydian]

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.

Just to be clear, I have never said McQueary answered NO. I wasn’t there for the conversation. What I do know is that Dranov, as a doctor who should have a good idea what to do in that situation, certainly reacted like McQueary said NO when asked if he witnessed a sexual act. No need to report it to the police that night while the possible child sexual assault victim was still perhaps in the custody of the perpetrator. Just advise him to report it administratively to a football coach the next day.

Unless of course Dranov is just a really, really bad person....you know, just like MM’s dad, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier and Tim Curley (and who knows who else, girlfriend?, mother?, etc). But I know that messes up your black and white little world, so carry on with your Mike McQueary bias because you used to hang out in bars with him.

 

[Mixolydian]

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.

You’re using your head and connecting obvious dots. Uncle doesn’t allow it.

 

[pandaczar12]

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.

He also has no reason to believe the child was not a patient if his. How could he make that determination without seeking out the identity of the teen? Regardless, what about his moral obligation? Does he see a kid wondering around Hershey park alone, crying for their parents, and think... I could help, but is that a patient of mine?

So I guess every day since the law changed, he has committed a crime, based on how C/S/S were treated.

 

[LundyPSU]

That's another false narrative. Here's Dranov's actual testimony.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.

That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.

Have you read Dranov's GJ testimony?

Even just focusing on what you quote above, Mike was asked multiple times what he saw. He answered each time what he heard. Says a lot.

Also seems that Mike described the situation differently to Dranov. Mike told Dranov (according to Dranov) that he saw the boy in the shower and an arm reach out and pull the boy back. Then later saw JS walk out of the shower. Very different description than what Mike has described to others. Dranov didn't testify that Mike said he saw JS and the boy together in the shower pressed up against each other, etc.

 

[LundyPSU]

"Dranov testified that he and John McQueary later met with then-Vice President Gary Schultz, one of the two administrators to whom Mike McQueary had reported the shower incident, to work out an affiliation agreement between his medical practice and Penn State. After the meeting, John McQueary asked where the investigation stood."
https://onwardstate.com/2016/10/19/...estify-on-day-3-of-mcqueary-penn-state-trial/

EDIT: What's strange is the affiliation agreement was already announced by Spanier in September of 2000.
http://test.scripts.psu.edu/dept/ur/archives/intercom_2000/Sept14/medicine.html

Yes, strange...possible that the post Feb 2001 meeting was related. I always found it interesting that John Sr and Dranov approach Schultz on this topic during a likely financial transaction between Penn State and their firm.

 

[colt21]

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.

You are partially correct
- yes DD was not a Mandated Reporter at that time. But then again, neither were any of GS, GS, TC and of course Joe.

Who was at that time? None other than Jackie

But where you are wrong is the new law. Under the new law MM would be REQUIRED to report DIRECTLY to Childline and Not even talk to the good Doctor or his Dad first - if he would have done today what he did then then he would be in a whole heap of trouble! No exaggeration - that boy would be in a ton of trouble - which, if I can add some personal commentary, is very telling in “hindsight”!

Further, with today’s law, Joe wouldn’t have even been notified by anyone, ever. He wouldn’t even be involved.

 

[pandaczar12]

Yes, strange...possible that the post Feb 2001 meeting was related. I always found it interesting that John Sr and Dranov approach Schultz on this topic during a likely financial transaction between Penn State and their firm.

Are you insinuating that they were using this situation as leverage? Much like many think Mike did with Joe for the WR coach position?

 

[jerot]

Yes, strange...possible that the post Feb 2001 meeting was related. I always found it interesting that John Sr and Dranov approach Schultz on this topic during a likely financial transaction between Penn State and their firm.

Are you kidding.
Schultz?
"I can't recall the specifics," Curley said about a meeting he had with former football Coach Joe Paterno to discuss what Mike McQueary heard and saw in his infamous 2001 visit to the Penn State locker room. "I have no recollection of that particular encounter," Curley said about a Sunday morning powwow he and Schultz had at Paterno's house to discuss what McQueary had witnessed in the showers. "I don't recall what his [Paterno's] response was."

About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up." But he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."

About another meeting Curley and Schultz had in President Spanier's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."

Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?

"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.

"No," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.

"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.

Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?

"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the alleged victim.

But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."

Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.

"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.

And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about that boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?

"No, he didn't," Curley said.

Well, what did he say?

"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.

The prosecutor reviewed for the jury's benefit Curley's guilty plea on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. In the guilty plea, Curley admitted that he "prevented or interfered with" the reporting of a case of suspected sex abuse, namely the boy that Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Sandusky.

"You know other kids got hurt" after the McQueary incident, the prosecutor asked Curley.

"That's what I understand," Curley said.

On cross-examination, Spanier's lawyer, Samuel W. Silver, asked Curley about his guilty plea. The defense lawyer specifically wanted to know who was it that Curley prevented or interfered with to keep that person from reporting a suspected case of child sex abuse.

Faced with the chance to finger Spanier, Curley blamed only himself.

"I pleaded guilty because I thought I should have done more," Curley told Silver. "At the end of the day, I felt I should have done more."

Silver, seemingly delighted with that answer, ended his cross-examination after only a couple of minutes.

 

[indynittany]

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.

Why didn't he answer yes?

 

[PSU2UNC]

He didn’t need most teenage boys. All he needed was one or two.

Or according to the OAG, ten. But carry on.

 

[PSU2UNC]

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.

I appreciate what you are saying, but it sounds like his GJ testimony was different from his testimony before the petit jury (the quotes you provided). (it is also possible that the GJ source is wrong, or lying, but you have to admit that there are contradictory statements floating around out there).

 

[PSU2UNC]

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.

Didn't C/S/S use that same defense (not a child under their care) unsuccessfully in their criminal proceedings? So using that same logic, the OAG should have gone after Dranov too.

 

[ouirpsu]

There is enough BS in this whole case, any reasonable person should question the whole f'in thing.

Yes, thank you. That's what I've been saying for years!

 

[colt21]

Didn't C/S/S use that same defense (not a child under their care) unsuccessfully in their criminal proceedings? So using that same logic, the OAG should have gone after Dranov too.

There are a lot of things the OAG SHOULD HAVE DONE !

But those things aren’t things one does when they have a specific agenda !

 

[indynittany]

Didn't C/S/S use that same defense (not a child under their care) unsuccessfully in their criminal proceedings? So using that same logic, the OAG should have gone after Dranov too.

This is what frustrates me about this whole discussion! Isn't Jack Raykovitz the elephant in the room? Why the hell are we talking about anybody else here?

 

[pandaczar12]

This is what frustrates me about this whole discussion! Isn't Jack Raykovitz the elephant in the room? Why the hell are we talking about anybody else here?

Because we are doing exactly what a handful of trolls want us to do. You know who I'm talking about, they only show up in these threads, and have ridiculous opinions to get everyone all spun up.

 

[YYZ86]

You are partially correct
- yes DD was not a Mandated Reporter at that time. But then again, neither were any of GS, GS, TC and of course Joe.

Who was at that time? None other than Jackie

But where you are wrong is the new law. Under the new law MM would be REQUIRED to report DIRECTLY to Childline and Not even talk to the good Doctor or his Dad first - if he would have done today what he did then then he would be in a whole heap of trouble! No exaggeration - that boy would be in a ton of trouble - which, if I can add some personal commentary, is very telling in “hindsight”!

Further, with today’s law, Joe wouldn’t have even been notified by anyone, ever. He wouldn’t even be involved.

I stated awhile ago in this thread that MM would be the only person arrested (other than Sandusky of course) if this entire scenario happened today.

 

[colt21]

I stated awhile ago in this thread that MM would be the only person arrested (other than Sandusky of course) if this entire scenario happened today.

I know it may be hard for people to believe but that is spot on - hence my 'whole heap of trouble' comment.

For the others reading this (no matter which 'side' you are on), take this fact to the bank. The new law requires Mike M to go directly to Childline, do not pass go, do not collect $7m, or he would face very serious reprecussions.

So here is what I find interesting in the new law.

After all the hindsight bias, after all the political maneuvering, after all the CYA - when people had an opportunity to sit down and write a new law, they did so in the most common-sense fashion they could have. Meaning, if Mike would have just followed common sense, literally NONE of the sh!t-show for PSU would have happened.

He didn't.....and here we are!

 

[indynittany]

Because we are doing exactly what a handful of trolls want us to do. You know who I'm talking about, they only show up in these threads, and have ridiculous opinions to get everyone all spun up.

Without the fabricated 'anal intercourse' assertion, the perception of everything changes. This narrative is completely different. C/S/S/P are dealing with exactly what Curley said they were.....boundary issues, which may or may not have been grooming. And once Tim told Raykovitz about the situation, PSU should have been out of it.

Jerry's guest privilege were rescinded. Jerry's employer was informed. PSU took the proper steps to protect PSU going forward, but neither Jerry nor the boy were PSU's responsibility. Without the 'anal intercourse' aspect to this story, C/S/S/P were, at worst, fooled by an expert in deception. Fooled by a man who fooled everyone for a long, long time. Without the 'anal intercourse' BS, what they did was perfectly reasonable whether Jerry is guilty or not. There is no scandal if the public isn't led to believe that C/S/S/P were told of and dealing with this horrible thing that not even the jury believed happened.

Jack Raykovitz, OTOH, was professionally and legally responsible for both Jerry and the boy. His role, then and now, tells us so much! He, unlike the others, was a mandatory reporter. Curley's report to him was serious enough for PSU to have taken away Jerry's keys to the facilities. In response, instead of filing a report, as was his legal duty, he lobbied Curley to allow Jerry to continue showering alone with TSM boys at PSU. When Curley wouldn't budge, JR then made arrangements for Jerry to use the facilities at a local hotel owned, in part, by one of TSM trustees....Bruce Heim.

If Sandusky is a monster, then JR is guilty of everything for which C/S/S/P were accused. However, it's just as ridiculous for Bruce Heim to have knowingly exposed himself and his business partners to the risk if he suspected, even for a minute, that Jerry had sexually abused a young boy as it was for Gary Schultz to suggest that Jerry should "avoid bringing children alone to Lasch". If Sandusky is not a monster, what are we doing here?

It's obvious that none of the people involved thought an act of CSA had occurred. So why did the OAG inject the 'anal intercourse' assertion? Why were Curley and Schultz's pictures displayed alongside Jerry's at the press conference and not that of JR? Why did Frank Noonan throw Joe Paterno, a witness for the prosecution, under the bus? Why did PSU pay Louis Freeh $7 million to defend a narrative that is demonstrably false? How do you reconcile Jack Raykovitz not being charged for any wrong doing, while Spanier is still fighting for his freedom?

 

[Osprey Lion]

So then, in this universe OJ is innocent and Tim is a criminal. End of story, got it.

Curley plead guilty. Case closed.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Or according to the OAG, ten. But carry on.

OK, ten. Out of how many n the program?

 

[Osprey Lion]

Without the fabricated 'anal intercourse' assertion, the perception of everything changes. This narrative is completely different. C/S/S/P are dealing with exactly what Curley said they were.....boundary issues, which may or may not have been grooming. And once Tim told Raykovitz about the situation, PSU should have been out of it.

Jerry's guest privilege were rescinded. Jerry's employer was informed. PSU took the proper steps to protect PSU going forward, but neither Jerry nor the boy were PSU's responsibility. Without the 'anal intercourse' aspect to this story, C/S/S/P were, at worst, fooled by an expert in deception. Fooled by a man who fooled everyone for a long, long time. Without the 'anal intercourse' BS, what they did was perfectly reasonable whether Jerry is guilty or not. There is no scandal if the public isn't led to believe that C/S/S/P were told of and dealing with this horrible thing that not even the jury believed happened.

Jack Raykovitz, OTOH, was professionally and legally responsible for both Jerry and the boy. His role, then and now, tells us so much! He, unlike the others, was a mandatory reporter. Curley's report to him was serious enough for PSU to have taken away Jerry's keys to the facilities. In response, instead of filing a report, as was his legal duty, he lobbied Curley to allow Jerry to continue showering alone with TSM boys at PSU. When Curley wouldn't budge, JR then made arrangements for Jerry to use the facilities at a local hotel owned, in part, by one of TSM trustees....Bruce Heim.

If Sandusky is a monster, then JR is guilty of everything C/S/S/P were accused. However, it's just as ridiculous for Bruce Heim to have knowingly exposed himself and his business partners to the risk if he suspected, even for a minute, that Jerry had sexually abused a young boy as it was for Gary Schultz to suggest that Jerry should "avoid bringing children alone to Lasch". If Sandusky is not a monster, what are we doing here?

It's obvious that none of the people involved thought an act of CSA had occurred. So why did the OAG inject the 'anal intercourse' assertion? Why were Curley and Schultz's pictures displayed alongside Jerry's at the press conference and not that of JR? Why did PSU pay Freeh $7 million to defend a narrative that is demonstrably false? How do you reconcile Jack Raykovitz not being charged for any wrong doing, while Spanier is still fighting for his freedom?

You seem oblivious to the fact that the criticism of Paterno, etc was caused largely by efforts to protect PSU rather than Jerry's victims.

 

[indynittany]

You seem oblivious to the fact that the criticism of Paterno, etc was caused largely by efforts to protect PSU rather than Jerry's victims.

What victim(s)?

 

[YYZ86]

I know it may be hard for people to believe but that is spot on - hence my 'whole heap of trouble' comment.

For the others reading this (no matter which 'side' you are on), take this fact to the bank. The new law requires Mike M to go directly to Childline, do not pass go, do not collect $7m, or he would face very serious reprecussions.

So here is what I find interesting in the new law.

After all the hindsight bias, after all the political maneuvering, after all the CYA - when people had an opportunity to sit down and write a new law, they did so in the most common-sense fashion they could have. Meaning, if Mike would have just followed common sense, literally NONE of the sh!t-show for PSU would have happened.

He didn't.....and here we are!

The other thing that people never understand is that once you make the report, stay out of it. People always want you to play Rambo, but once you report to the proper people, leave it up to them. By injecting yourself you could adversely affect the investigation. People always like to say JP and some others may have done what was legally required but did not do what was morally required. They have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Curley plead guilty. Case closed.

So you don't understand how plea bargains work either.

Cool.

 

[Zenophile]

They have no idea what they are talking about.

Yup.

 

[PSUPride1]

You seem oblivious to the fact that the criticism of Paterno, etc was caused largely by efforts to protect PSU rather than Jerry's victims.

Show us the evidence where anyone said we have to protect Penn State or Penn State Football. Try and use common sense. There's not really any upside to protecting a retired alleged abuser. The downside, however, is ridiculous.
Since Joe was the Mastermind of this plot allegedly to protect his brand please show us the evidence and be specific.
I'm not sure why he would get bad publicity for turning in an alleged child abuser which is what he did anyway. I would think one would receive good publicity.
Why wouldn't Joe and Penn State protect Penn State and the brand in 98. This narrative is so completely full of horseshit that it's embarrassing we still have to discuss it with folks especially Penn Staters.
Are you sure you're not Bernie McCue back from the dead?

 

[KnightSlayer]

Curley plead guilty. Case closed.

Is this really how you want to spend your twilight years?

 

[colt21]

Curley plead guilty. Case closed.

not really bud - without context that comment is as shallow as you are

 

[pandaczar12]

Yup.

View embedded media

Can someone who tweets correct the guy defending Penn State that says the only thing the admins were found guilty of was failure to report?

 

[gslachta]

One thing I will acknowledge is that talking to actual human beings, most fans of other teams are very willing to listen and the overwhelming majority will admit Joe Paterno got screwed. The real world is not the internet. Likewise, the sports media needs to realize most people are not Twitter trolls and be willing to look at this issue again and acknowledge they got it wrong.

That hasn’t been my personal experience. Wish it were. Most people I have spoken to from other schools have bought the narrative lock, stock and barrel. Pisses me off. Closed minds!

 

[colt21]

The other thing that people never understand is that once you make the report, stay out of it. People always want you to play Rambo, but once you report to the proper people, leave it up to them. By injecting yourself you could adversely affect the investigation. People always like to say JP and some others may have done what was legally required but did not do what was morally required. They have no idea what they are talking about.

again spot on - in my role at the time these reports would come to me and we would absolutely inform the person who notified us to 'stay out of it now'

 

[Zenophile]

Since Joe was the Mastermind of this plot allegedly to protect his brand please show us the evidence and be specific.

Just don't ask this of Louie.

 

[pandaczar12]

I know it may be hard for people to believe but that is spot on - hence my 'whole heap of trouble' comment.

For the others reading this (no matter which 'side' you are on), take this fact to the bank. The new law requires Mike M to go directly to Childline, do not pass go, do not collect $7m, or he would face very serious reprecussions.

So here is what I find interesting in the new law.

After all the hindsight bias, after all the political maneuvering, after all the CYA - when people had an opportunity to sit down and write a new law, they did so in the most common-sense fashion they could have. Meaning, if Mike would have just followed common sense, literally NONE of the sh!t-show for PSU would have happened.

He didn't.....and here we are!

So if they tried to get the PSU admins for failure to report, claiming that every day after the law changed they needed to report it... why doesn’t the same apply to Mike?

 

[colt21]

So if they tried to get the PSU admins for failure to report, claiming that every day after the law changed they needed to report it... why doesn’t the same apply to Mike?

I can't answer 'why' to anything the OAG did. The F2R statute didn't apply to anyone but Jack R.

But I can surmise that all of the other factors came into play when they developed their game-plan
* TC's hatred of and vendetta against TC
* PSU BOT opportunity to sack Joe
* Ken F opportunity with the Vioxx debacle
* MM's gambling and picture-taking issues provided an opportunity
* etc

In the end there is no WHY - there is only the evil intentions of a variety of parties here

 

[Media Fan]

He also has no reason to believe the child was not a patient if his. How could he make that determination without seeking out the identity of the teen? Regardless, what about his moral obligation? Does he see a kid wondering around Hershey park alone, crying for their parents, and think... I could help, but is that a patient of mine?

So I guess every day since the law changed, he has committed a crime, based on how C/S/S were treated.

As a human being, I would think he had a responsibility as did the father.

 

[marshall23]

Or according to the OAG, ten. But carry on.

and Sandusky had him stand on a stool.....lol

 

[pandaczar12]

As a human being, I would think he had a responsibility as did the father.

Unless Mike really didn't see anything but horseplay, and relayed that same info to everyone. That's the most likely scenario. I refuse to believe that Mike witnessed abuse and ran, then told at least 6 people, who told Sandusky's boss... and all of them decided to ignore it. Occam's razor.

 

[indynittany]

I can't answer 'why' to anything the OAG did. The F2R statute didn't apply to anyone but Jack R.

But I can surmise that all of the other factors came into play when they developed their game-plan
* TC's hatred of and vendetta against TC
* PSU BOT opportunity to sack Joe
* Ken F opportunity with the Vioxx debacle
* MM's gambling and picture-taking issues provided an opportunity
* etc

In the end there is no WHY - there is only the evil intentions of a variety of parties here

There is a why. And it usually involves a $, followed by several 0000's.

 

[colt21]

There is a why. And it usually involves a $, followed by several 0000's.

Yes there is - but in this case I think there were a bunch of "why's" !