The guy is weird. I once asked him why he thinks Sandusky is guilty. He then posted a clip of Jerry’s non-confession response to Ziegler when Zig employed the questioning tactic in which Jim Clemente guaranteed a confession.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
The guy is weird. I once asked him why he thinks Sandusky is guilty. He then posted a clip of Jerry’s non-confession response to Ziegler when Zig employed the questioning tactic in which Jim Clemente guaranteed a confession.
Noonan’s remarks were the result of him shitting his pants AFTER the media freaked out. I don’t think he pre-planned to bash Joe prior to the arrest.
Dad even testified that he didn't hear anything that warranted going to the police.
The strategy was clearly to bait-&-switch the scndal to the football program and JVP away from TSM & the PA Government (where the responsibility resided given that Sandusky was working for TSM & Central Mountain High School via clearance from the PA Dept of Welfare's County-Level Office - i.e., Clinton County Child & Youth Services. In addition, Corbett was OAG at the time the PA Dept. Of Welfare's County-Level Office, the same Clinton County C&YS, indicated Sandusky in March 2009 via work he was doing for TSM at CM High School [and notified PA OAG Corbett that they had Indicated an authorized TSM Employee of suspected Child Abuse at Central Mountain High School]).
Let's also keep in mind that the PSU BOT and Corbett - the two principals who concocted the "Bait-&-Switch Fall-Guy" scenario from TSM to PSU and the PSU Football Program - had massive motivation for doing so because they were the parties tied-to and ENABLING TSM via the PA Govt as registered PA Charity with the PA Govt's "Goodhouskeeping Seal of Approval" via both of TSM's co-State-Regulators, the OAG and Dept. Of Welfare. Let's not forget that the Chairman of The Board of TSM held a fund-raiser for OAG Corbett's Gubernatorial Campaign at his own private home at the very same time, the Spring 2009, that the Dept of Welfare asked OAG Corbett to investigate TSM for suspected child-abuse via authorized access at CM High School. The PSU BOT and Corbett had motivation in spades to frame PSU and use the football program as a bait-&-switch fall-guy as they are the very parties with the massive quid-pro-quo mutual-beneficial relationship with TSM that enabled Sandusky in regards to accessing PA children via TSM.
Be careful replying to your own posts and watch that CAPS LOCK button. People might think you are the 9th resurrection of BushwoodCC!
Corbett ran on a no tax increase platform. Could you imagine the outcry for more spending on child services if THAT had been the narrative instead of PSU football? I'm not sure what the state spends now, but it would have been forced to increase that spending by a lot.
He was the head of the PA state police and he served at the pleasure of Tom Corbett. If what you say is true, Corbett should have had his head on a platter. That he was never called to task for his unprofessional antics supports my position that he was instructed to make those remarks.
Joe was not indicted. He was not a target of the Sandusky investigation. And he was a witness for the prosecution. Joe had no legal avenue through which to fight Noonan's assertion. More importantly, there was no reason to even bring up Joe's name!
And if you believe Joe was set to testify against Jerry, wouldn't you be really pissed if one of your key witnesses...one of the most famous men in the world....a man celebrated for his integrity..... just had his credibility questioned? Where was the OAG?
Who gave Frank Noonan a microphone at that press conference?
I'll lay odds it was the same person who decided to have huge photos of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz displayed on that stage, and all three equally prominent. I am arguing that Noonan served no purpose other than to sensationalize this whole thing, and that's exactly what he did.
The indictment PC was staged intentionally to make PSU the focal point. Prove me wrong!
Last edited:
I agree with you that they intentionally made PSU the focal point, but I think they were shocked the media tried to blame Joe as well.
I think Corbett regretted it for his own personal reasons in the end, but I believe it was an integral part of the original plan to try Jerry in the court of public opinion and implicate PSU in the process.
Agreed! Otherwise, Noonan doesn’t run Joe over with the PA Political bus and Corbett doesn’t brag like he did. Corbett never imagined it costing him the Gub’ner’s Mansion, however.
Corbett would have also had to explain why the Chairman of the TSM Board was hosting campaign fundraisers at his personal residence for Corbett at the very same time that the PA Dept of Welfare's County-Level Office in Clinton County had filed a formal report of suspected Child Abuse with OAG Corbett (and local authorities) in regards to TSM's Authorized Access at Central Mountain High School. (The incestuous relationship between OAG Corbett and TSM was also clearly demonstrated by the multi-million $$$ matching grant that Corbett approved for TSM in the Spring 2011 despite knowing that TSM had been indicated as being involved in a Dept of Welfare reported Child Abuse case [that was reported directly go Corbett who was OAG at the time] in the Spring 2009!).
Last edited:
Carol Tavris of The Wall Street Journal writes a review of “Talking to Strangers” which calls Malcolm Gladwell “lazy” for not acknowledging that Jerry Sandusky is likely innocent.
-------------------
‘Talking to Strangers’ Review: Fool Me Once, Shame on Me
Why are we so often wrong in interpreting others’ behavior? Why do interactions between men and women on college campuses—or police officers and civilians on city streets—sometimes go tragically awry?
By Carol Tavris
Sept. 13, 2019 11:08 am ET
‘Talking to Strangers’ is a great title, but it doesn’t describe the book Malcolm Gladwell has written. Judging from a mini-survey I conducted, most people expect this work to be about the strangers we encounter in our daily lives—the fellow commuter on the subway, the nice woman at the deli checkout, the uncivil moron who gives you the finger when you tell him his headlights are off.
Mr. Gladwell’s “strangers” are mostly people we don’t talk to but rather talk about—people who make news for one terrible reason or another. They include Amanda Knox, convicted of murdering her roommate in Italy and ultimately exonerated; Sandra Bland, the African-American woman whose encounter with a police officer quickly spun out of control, leading to her arrest and eventual suicide in prison; Brock Turner, convicted of sexual assault against an intoxicated fellow student; even Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, who, meeting Hitler in the 1930s, felt confident he had no intentions of starting a world war. Sometimes Mr. Gladwell’s “strangers” aren’t strangers at all, but people that some of us might have known, worked with, or admired— Bernie Madoff, Larry Nassar—only to be devastated on learning that they were not at all what we thought them to be.
Talking to Strangers
By Malcolm Gladwell
Little, Brown, 386 pages, $30
What could possibly unite all these stories, with Sylvia Plath, Cuban spies and al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed thrown in for good measure? Mr. Gladwell’s answer is that, although we don’t have the full story about these people, we are prepared to jump to conclusions, criticizing, moralizing, condemning and misunderstanding as we go. We think we would have known Hitler was a genocidal lunatic. We think we can detect liars, terrorists, sexual abusers and con men. But be careful about what you think you think, Mr. Gladwell cautions, especially when you are thinking about a stranger’s story that makes you feel angry and self-righteous, because you’re often wrong.
Mr. Gladwell, the author of five previous best sellers (including “The Tipping Point,” “Blink,” and “Outliers”) and the host of the “Revisionist History” podcast, has an established M.O.: find an event or situation that piques his curiosity; uncover some charming, relevant research that applies to it; and come up with an unexpected take on what happened. Sometimes this approach works; sometimes it doesn’t. “Talking to Strangers” contains such a varied assortment of stories and studies that it’s often hard to find the chocolate in the trail mix.
Mr. Gladwell is well known as an enjoyable raconteur but a somewhat lazy researcher, and both of those qualities are on display in this book. Consider his starting question: How is it that we so often are wrong in interpreting a stranger’s behavior? Why were so many fooled by Bernie Madoff, and why couldn’t the CIA, throughout the 1980s, identify Cuban spies in its midst?
The answer he chooses, with his unerring eye for the pithy phrase, is based on psychologist Timothy R. Levine ’s theory that we have a “default to truth.” That is, our “operating assumption is that the people we are dealing with are honest.” (This well-established idea is neither new nor original with Mr. Levine.) This bias, Mr. Gladwell hastens to add, makes society possible: We trust that others in our tribe are honest, won’t cheat us and will do what they need to do to keep social life humming along. If we had the opposite bias, making us constantly skeptical and mistrustful, we would lapse into paranoia and chaos.
So far, so good, but he ignores the richer question that social scientists would ask: Under what conditions do we default to truth, and when don’t we? We don’t when we are dealing with salespeople whom we assume to be lying or deceptive. We don’t when we are dealing with members of an unfamiliar group—another tribe, in evolutionary terms—whom we don’t know or trust. And we don’t when we are interrogating anyone, whether a criminal suspect or a spouse, who we already believe is guilty, in which case anything that person does confirms our belief that he or she is lying.
We default to truth, in short, but only when we are dealing with people whom we already believe to be truthful.
In Mr. Gladwell’s accounts of two infamous cases of sexual abuse, Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nassar, Mr. Gladwell reassures parents and others who knew these men that they should not beat themselves up for “defaulting to truth” and, at first, denying charges against them. When we are forced to choose between two alternatives, he says, one of which is likely (he’s our friend/coach/doctor, therefore innocent) and the other impossible to imagine (he’s a pedophile), just about all of us will choose the former. Absolutely true, but here is where the crucial exception matters: We default to truth—except when an accused man has been branded as guilty, in which case it becomes impossible to imagine his innocence. Then the mob takes over.
Given our nation’s tumultuous history with twin problems—failing to identify and punish sexual predators, and generating a moral panic that has sent innocent people to prison—Mr. Gladwell could have given us both sides of defaulting to truth. Having cited Mark Pendergrast’s exhaustive and shocking story of the Sandusky case, “The Most Hated Man in America,” and journalist John Ziegler ’s equally compelling case for Sandusky’s innocence, he was familiar with the argument that Sandusky’s conviction rested almost entirely on claims of repressed-and-recovered memories of blurry events that happened years earlier; indeed he quotes from transcripts showing how witnesses changed their minds over time and with repeated questioning. Yet Mr. Gladwell ultimately dismisses this evidence, telling readers they can find out more about Sandusky skeptics in the endnotes, and saying in a footnote: “The idea that traumatic memories are repressed and can be retrieved only under the direction of therapy is—to say the least—controversial.” This is inexcusably lazy thinking. That idea is not controversial among memory scientists: It is flat-out wrong.
Mr. Gladwell calls upon other findings in social psychology to explain why we aren’t good at accurately reading other people, showing that we are often too quick to explain other people’s behavior in terms of personality traits rather than their situations and culture. For example, we mistakenly believe “that people’s behavior and demeanor—the way they represent themselves on the outside—provides an authentic and reliable window into the way they feel on the inside.” But if, like Amanda Knox, they don’t grieve or show remorse the way we think they should, we assume they are incapable of sorrow or guilt (and, in her case, we think that she was guilty).
Mr. Gladwell is determinedly apolitical in avoiding explanations of complex social interactions based on sexism (as in Brock Turner’s case) or racism (in Sandra Bland’s case). Thus, he says, we misattribute the problem of sexual assault on college campuses to men not respecting women or to them being misogynists and rapists, rather than seeing it as a failure to agree on rules of consent—a failure washed down by massive amounts of alcohol. Anyone who says this in public runs into a buzz saw of protest that they are blaming the victim, but Mr. Gladwell wants us to focus on what happens to brains on booze and what happens when most college students don’t even agree on what consent for “more sexual activity” is. How can anyone “talk to strangers,” he wonders, let alone consent to have sex with them, if both parties are blind drunk or blacked out?
Like all good storytellers, Mr. Gladwell frames his book with a mystery: What happened in the 2015 exchange between Texas police officer Brian Encinia and motorist Sandra Bland that sent it off the rails? How did she end up in prison for failing to use her turn signal? Racism, he says, was not the primary reason. Mr. Encinia was following the “Kansas City” policing manual that requires officers to stop cars for minor infractions as a way of looking for signs of more serious crimes, so he was already on the lookout for fidgety or irritable drivers behaving nervously. She, an African-American, may already have been disposed to be angry at white police officers, so she responded to his requests—such as to extinguish her cigarette—with anger. Unfortunately for both of them, he was applying the police manual’s rules mindlessly, in a low-crime area, with no guidance about how to talk to unfamiliar black strangers like Sandra Bland. She was acting on her expectations mindlessly, with no guidance about how to talk to unfamiliar white strangers like the police.
This is the kind of illuminating reinterpretation of a familiar narrative that Mr. Gladwell does so well, but to give us the whole story, he would have had to tell us about the many black motorists who did try to “talk to” and placate an officer—and were nonetheless shot to death. As usual, in this story and many of the others in “Talking to Strangers,” he leaves out what doesn’t fit.
—Ms. Tavris is a social psychologist. Her latest book, with Avrum Bluming, is “Estrogen Matters.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-strangers-review-fool-me-once-shame-on-me-11568387290
-------------------
‘Talking to Strangers’ Review: Fool Me Once, Shame on Me
Why are we so often wrong in interpreting others’ behavior? Why do interactions between men and women on college campuses—or police officers and civilians on city streets—sometimes go tragically awry?
By Carol Tavris
Sept. 13, 2019 11:08 am ET
‘Talking to Strangers’ is a great title, but it doesn’t describe the book Malcolm Gladwell has written. Judging from a mini-survey I conducted, most people expect this work to be about the strangers we encounter in our daily lives—the fellow commuter on the subway, the nice woman at the deli checkout, the uncivil moron who gives you the finger when you tell him his headlights are off.
Mr. Gladwell’s “strangers” are mostly people we don’t talk to but rather talk about—people who make news for one terrible reason or another. They include Amanda Knox, convicted of murdering her roommate in Italy and ultimately exonerated; Sandra Bland, the African-American woman whose encounter with a police officer quickly spun out of control, leading to her arrest and eventual suicide in prison; Brock Turner, convicted of sexual assault against an intoxicated fellow student; even Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, who, meeting Hitler in the 1930s, felt confident he had no intentions of starting a world war. Sometimes Mr. Gladwell’s “strangers” aren’t strangers at all, but people that some of us might have known, worked with, or admired— Bernie Madoff, Larry Nassar—only to be devastated on learning that they were not at all what we thought them to be.
Talking to Strangers
By Malcolm Gladwell
Little, Brown, 386 pages, $30
What could possibly unite all these stories, with Sylvia Plath, Cuban spies and al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed thrown in for good measure? Mr. Gladwell’s answer is that, although we don’t have the full story about these people, we are prepared to jump to conclusions, criticizing, moralizing, condemning and misunderstanding as we go. We think we would have known Hitler was a genocidal lunatic. We think we can detect liars, terrorists, sexual abusers and con men. But be careful about what you think you think, Mr. Gladwell cautions, especially when you are thinking about a stranger’s story that makes you feel angry and self-righteous, because you’re often wrong.
Mr. Gladwell, the author of five previous best sellers (including “The Tipping Point,” “Blink,” and “Outliers”) and the host of the “Revisionist History” podcast, has an established M.O.: find an event or situation that piques his curiosity; uncover some charming, relevant research that applies to it; and come up with an unexpected take on what happened. Sometimes this approach works; sometimes it doesn’t. “Talking to Strangers” contains such a varied assortment of stories and studies that it’s often hard to find the chocolate in the trail mix.
Mr. Gladwell is well known as an enjoyable raconteur but a somewhat lazy researcher, and both of those qualities are on display in this book. Consider his starting question: How is it that we so often are wrong in interpreting a stranger’s behavior? Why were so many fooled by Bernie Madoff, and why couldn’t the CIA, throughout the 1980s, identify Cuban spies in its midst?
The answer he chooses, with his unerring eye for the pithy phrase, is based on psychologist Timothy R. Levine ’s theory that we have a “default to truth.” That is, our “operating assumption is that the people we are dealing with are honest.” (This well-established idea is neither new nor original with Mr. Levine.) This bias, Mr. Gladwell hastens to add, makes society possible: We trust that others in our tribe are honest, won’t cheat us and will do what they need to do to keep social life humming along. If we had the opposite bias, making us constantly skeptical and mistrustful, we would lapse into paranoia and chaos.
So far, so good, but he ignores the richer question that social scientists would ask: Under what conditions do we default to truth, and when don’t we? We don’t when we are dealing with salespeople whom we assume to be lying or deceptive. We don’t when we are dealing with members of an unfamiliar group—another tribe, in evolutionary terms—whom we don’t know or trust. And we don’t when we are interrogating anyone, whether a criminal suspect or a spouse, who we already believe is guilty, in which case anything that person does confirms our belief that he or she is lying.
We default to truth, in short, but only when we are dealing with people whom we already believe to be truthful.
In Mr. Gladwell’s accounts of two infamous cases of sexual abuse, Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nassar, Mr. Gladwell reassures parents and others who knew these men that they should not beat themselves up for “defaulting to truth” and, at first, denying charges against them. When we are forced to choose between two alternatives, he says, one of which is likely (he’s our friend/coach/doctor, therefore innocent) and the other impossible to imagine (he’s a pedophile), just about all of us will choose the former. Absolutely true, but here is where the crucial exception matters: We default to truth—except when an accused man has been branded as guilty, in which case it becomes impossible to imagine his innocence. Then the mob takes over.
Given our nation’s tumultuous history with twin problems—failing to identify and punish sexual predators, and generating a moral panic that has sent innocent people to prison—Mr. Gladwell could have given us both sides of defaulting to truth. Having cited Mark Pendergrast’s exhaustive and shocking story of the Sandusky case, “The Most Hated Man in America,” and journalist John Ziegler ’s equally compelling case for Sandusky’s innocence, he was familiar with the argument that Sandusky’s conviction rested almost entirely on claims of repressed-and-recovered memories of blurry events that happened years earlier; indeed he quotes from transcripts showing how witnesses changed their minds over time and with repeated questioning. Yet Mr. Gladwell ultimately dismisses this evidence, telling readers they can find out more about Sandusky skeptics in the endnotes, and saying in a footnote: “The idea that traumatic memories are repressed and can be retrieved only under the direction of therapy is—to say the least—controversial.” This is inexcusably lazy thinking. That idea is not controversial among memory scientists: It is flat-out wrong.
Mr. Gladwell calls upon other findings in social psychology to explain why we aren’t good at accurately reading other people, showing that we are often too quick to explain other people’s behavior in terms of personality traits rather than their situations and culture. For example, we mistakenly believe “that people’s behavior and demeanor—the way they represent themselves on the outside—provides an authentic and reliable window into the way they feel on the inside.” But if, like Amanda Knox, they don’t grieve or show remorse the way we think they should, we assume they are incapable of sorrow or guilt (and, in her case, we think that she was guilty).
Mr. Gladwell is determinedly apolitical in avoiding explanations of complex social interactions based on sexism (as in Brock Turner’s case) or racism (in Sandra Bland’s case). Thus, he says, we misattribute the problem of sexual assault on college campuses to men not respecting women or to them being misogynists and rapists, rather than seeing it as a failure to agree on rules of consent—a failure washed down by massive amounts of alcohol. Anyone who says this in public runs into a buzz saw of protest that they are blaming the victim, but Mr. Gladwell wants us to focus on what happens to brains on booze and what happens when most college students don’t even agree on what consent for “more sexual activity” is. How can anyone “talk to strangers,” he wonders, let alone consent to have sex with them, if both parties are blind drunk or blacked out?
Like all good storytellers, Mr. Gladwell frames his book with a mystery: What happened in the 2015 exchange between Texas police officer Brian Encinia and motorist Sandra Bland that sent it off the rails? How did she end up in prison for failing to use her turn signal? Racism, he says, was not the primary reason. Mr. Encinia was following the “Kansas City” policing manual that requires officers to stop cars for minor infractions as a way of looking for signs of more serious crimes, so he was already on the lookout for fidgety or irritable drivers behaving nervously. She, an African-American, may already have been disposed to be angry at white police officers, so she responded to his requests—such as to extinguish her cigarette—with anger. Unfortunately for both of them, he was applying the police manual’s rules mindlessly, in a low-crime area, with no guidance about how to talk to unfamiliar black strangers like Sandra Bland. She was acting on her expectations mindlessly, with no guidance about how to talk to unfamiliar white strangers like the police.
This is the kind of illuminating reinterpretation of a familiar narrative that Mr. Gladwell does so well, but to give us the whole story, he would have had to tell us about the many black motorists who did try to “talk to” and placate an officer—and were nonetheless shot to death. As usual, in this story and many of the others in “Talking to Strangers,” he leaves out what doesn’t fit.
—Ms. Tavris is a social psychologist. Her latest book, with Avrum Bluming, is “Estrogen Matters.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-strangers-review-fool-me-once-shame-on-me-11568387290
I am surprised that no one has commented on this Wall Street Journal editorial that makes the case that Sandusky is innocent. Malcolm Gladwell makes the case that Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Joe Paterno did absolutely nothing wrong and have been unfairly vilified by the OAG, the media, and the public at large as enablers of child sex abuse. I am thrilled that someone of Gladwell's stature is willing to go on the record to state that there is something very wrong with the commonly accepted narrative of what has previously been reported. That being said, I don't think that Gladwell went far enough. Gladwell pokes big holes in the stories of v1, v2, and v4 (the most damning accusations against Sandusky imo), but is only willing to say he has no clue whether Sandusky is innocent. He cites Mark Pendergrast's excellent book "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as John Ziegler's extensive research into the case and the best he can do is offer no opinion on the key question in the case. I am disappointed that he didn't offer an opinion to this central question. I love the Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by Carol Tavris that reviews "Talking to Strangers." I think she hit the nail on the head when she calls Malcolm Gladwell “lazy” for not acknowledging that Jerry Sandusky is likely innocent.
Here is the key paragraph of the piece:
"Given our nation’s tumultuous history with twin problems—failing to identify and punish sexual predators, and generating a moral panic that has sent innocent people to prison—Mr. Gladwell could have given us both sides of defaulting to truth. Having cited Mark Pendergrast’s exhaustive and shocking story of the Sandusky case, “The Most Hated Man in America,” and journalist John Ziegler ’s equally compelling case for Sandusky’s innocence, he was familiar with the argument that Sandusky’s conviction rested almost entirely on claims of repressed-and-recovered memories of blurry events that happened years earlier; indeed he quotes from transcripts showing how witnesses changed their minds over time and with repeated questioning. Yet Mr. Gladwell ultimately dismisses this evidence, telling readers they can find out more about Sandusky skeptics in the endnotes, and saying in a footnote: “The idea that traumatic memories are repressed and can be retrieved only under the direction of therapy is—to say the least—controversial.” This is inexcusably lazy thinking. That idea is not controversial among memory scientists: It is flat-out wrong."
I don't see where this WSJ article makes that case that Sandusky is likely innocent. I know Ziegler said that it does, but where?
I think Ziegler hurts his cause by making comments and leaps like this. I think Sandusky is likely innocent, but I don't know if the author of this article does.
I think Ziegler hurts his cause by making comments and leaps like this. I think Sandusky is likely innocent, but I don't know if the author of this article does.
I don't know if you read the same article as I did. It seems clear to me that the author, Carol Tarvis, implies that Sandusky is likely innocent and calls out Gladwell for not saying so.
Tarvis states "that Sandusky’s conviction rested almost entirely on claims of repressed-and-recovered memories of blurry events that happened years earlier; indeed he quotes from transcripts showing how witnesses changed their minds over time." She goes on to respond to Gladwell's claim that repressed memory therapy is controversial by stating "That idea is not controversial among memory scientists: It is flat-out wrong."
True but it points out that maybe the verdict maybe should have been "not guilty". This saga has been corrupt in so many ways you'd think more people would stand up and point that out. Give the man a fair trial at least. Then if he's found guilty, so be it.
It says that she didn't think that Gladwell went far enough in his analysis. She obviously agrees with Gladwell's opinion that Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno didn't do anything wrong in their handling of the McQueary report regarding v2 and the Lasch building incident in 2000/2001. Where she has a beef with Gladwell is with his aligning with the Pendergrast/Ziegler camp, yet only will say he has no clue whether Sandusky is guilty or not. Tavris acknowledges big holes in the v1, v2, and v4 narratives and says that repressed memory therapy has been debunked. If Tavris is using arguments that Sandusky's legal counsel have been promoting, I believe it is a safe bet that Tarvis believes that there is a very good chance that Sandusky is not guilty.
Can you please point out the testimony by v1, v2, and. V4 where they admitted using repressed memory therapy.
If not, why are you talking about it?
If not, why are you talking about it?
I'm confused about the December 29, 2000 date.
Dranov says in court that he knew the date when he came over and spoke with Mike was February 9, 2001 because that was the weekend he had a medical conference up in Boston and he remembers leaving the next day.
So did Mike put on some dramatic performance for Dranov 6 weeks after he witnessed the incident? That makes no sense.
Dranov says in court that he knew the date when he came over and spoke with Mike was February 9, 2001 because that was the weekend he had a medical conference up in Boston and he remembers leaving the next day.
So did Mike put on some dramatic performance for Dranov 6 weeks after he witnessed the incident? That makes no sense.
The date has always been confusing. Not sure how anybody can remember a specific date from ten years earlier unless it was a holiday or something.
Dranov, however, did not object to the March 1, 2002 date until AFTER Jerry Sandusky had already objected to that date in early 2012.
My guess is that after February 9 was determined to be the date, he looked back at an old calendar, saw he left for Boston the next day, and reverse engineered his memory of that weekend, when the truth was he really couldn’t recall much of anything. McQueary did the same thing when he stated to Jonelle Eshbach that Joe Paterno was “out of town” the night before. He had found the old article in the PSU football archives that Joe Paterno was at a dinner on March 1, 2002.
True. I'm curious what the proponents of the December 29,2000 date think in regard to Dranov claiming that the date he spoke with Mike was February 9. I could see Mike waiting a while to tell Joe about the incident...but why act out a display for Dranov 6 weeks later? It seems clear Dranov heard about the incident right after it happened, but Dranov thinks it was February 9 and has his calendar to back that up.
It doesn't seem very likely that Mike would be able to act distraught and incoherent 6 weeks after the event -- and I believe Joe basically confirmed that Mike remained shook up when Mike spoke to Joe.
On the other hand, none of the board's gumshoes have bothered to check if there was a medical conference in Boston around New Year's. My guess is no. Pretty dumb to have a conference on a Holiday.
The reason Mike may have been shook up because he was nervous about talking to his legendary boss about wanting a promotion.
And as I mentioned in my last post, it was not Jonathan Dranov who first objected to the March 1, 2002 date based on other events he knew that were going on at the same time as the shower incident; it was Jerry Sandusky.
Your guess?? That's just another way of saying you don't have any idea. Not YOU in particular but guessing is the opposite of fact. McQ guessed about things and look how that turned out.
Apparently you suck at sentence comprehension. He is obviously cited the BS stories of 1,2, and 4 in addition to the repressed memory cases (7 and possibly 3).
Why would Jerry remember the exact date of an innocent shower 10 years afterwards? Come on man, be better.
Yes, I admit I’m just speculating here. But my point is Dranov did not become certain February 9, 2001 was the date until after the OAG stated that was the date (because Jerry Sandusky debunked the March 1, 2002 date)
Assuming Dranov is telling the truth... it doesn't seem like a big deal for Mike to "complete the lie" by going to Dranov. Because we are in this case talking about someone opportunistic enough to use the shower situation to get a promotion. Also, maybe Mike went to Dranov to CYA, knowing that Dranov was a mandatory reporter.
Maybe he was shook up because he was lying to a legendary coach, and his lie had the potential to ruin the life of popular local person (The Second Mile's Jerry Sandusky).
It took him a little help. He remembered it happened around the same time he barely missed out on the Virginia coaching job and around the time his book was released. Something he had been saying for long before John Ziegler questioned that date. He also remembered Allan Myers did not have school that day it happened. After he was reminding of some events that happened around this time. (He had a book signing in Washington, Pa on Friday afternoon that he took Allan to, then drove to State College that evening with Allan where he stayed the night), he was able to figure out the correct date.
Not dumb at all. Married to a MD myself. He has attended a few conferences/lectures/continuing education during holiday breaks.
I don’t think he lied to Joe. I think all he told him was he saw Jerry in the locker shower with a boy and he was weirded out by it.
Really no different than Mike McQueary being sure it was March 1 because he'd been watching Rudy before he went over (which supposedly got him all fired up so he went to watch film - eye roll) AND remembered it being the Friday before Spring Break week, "because Campus was so dead", lol. March 1 satisfied both of these conditions which gave more credibility to McQueary's story until it was prove that neither of the two recollections that McQueary was so sure of were true on the new claimed actual date, Feb 9 - lol. The only conclusion one can draw about McQueary's claims re: Rudy & Spring Break is that they were reverse engineered and coached into McQueary by the corrupt prosecution and their investigators to bolster their original claim of March 1...
Last edited:
- Went to the first book signing of his new book in his hometown.
- Had an offer in hand to coach UVA
- Was actively campaigning with UVA to allow him to start a TSM in Charlottesville
- Other than that, nothing memorable
Similar threads
