Blog Entry

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

Posted on: December 11, 2011 11:48 am
Edited on: December 11, 2011 11:55 am
  •  
 
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported Sunday that the grand jury in the Jerry Sandusky case has heard a second, different version of what Penn State then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary witnessed in his 2002 encounter with Sandusky and a young boy in a PSU locker room.

McQueary has reportedly told the grand jury that he saw Sandusky and the boy engaged in a graphic sex act. But according to a source quoted in the Sunday Patriot-News report, the grand jury has also heard conflicting testimony from McQueary family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranov.  Per the source's account of Dranov's testimony, Dranov was present at the McQueary home when McQueary returned from the incident to discuss it with his father.

Dranov reportedly told the grand jury that McQueary's account that evening included seeing the boy and an adult sharing a shower stall and Sandusky leaving the showers (amongst other details), but not the graphic act of his earlier reported testimony. Dranov then advised McQueary to discuss the matter with Joe Paterno rather than go to the police, according to the Patriot-News source.

The precise nature of what McQueary told Paterno in their ensuing discussion has been the center of much of the outrage surrounding Paterno's and the PSU administration's inaction.

McQueary was placed on administrative leave from his coaching duties November 11 amidst threats to his safety.
  •  
Comments

Since: Sep 6, 2011
Posted on: December 13, 2011 8:05 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

YouI hate HENNE

YOur a fool if i may say so!  You have never seen the damage not only
emotional but the damage done but something the size of a coke bottle
injurie a child!  Years later the damage is done they need operations, yes
they damage done to them not only stay with them but it hurts them for years to come!!!!!!
I know a child whom was rape this way that was more then 35 years ago and she still needed
to be fix as an adult!

You have said innocent and technically still not done a thing wrong in YOUR FOOlish eye1
i wonder if you let someone keep you children over night and rape them you sir
would must let it happen, or maybe you are a card carry member NBLA  look that up and then
remember you fighting and believing something whom is 200 or more lbs raping a 10years child
a baby in my eyes!  You people whoms support these men surpsie me all of the time!
If someone in your family and  bet they did (say uncle or friend , father , or coach raped me!
You would make him " shut his mouth and fast"  like the true "hero you are"  like so many family!
I had a friend whom was 7 her step father raped her she told her mother she beat her with a hanger and
she was told NEVER TELL ANYONE she never did until me, he was RAN OVER WITH A CEMEMT TRUCK!
sHE LAUGHED WITH JOY!

Now after all of the stories i told you, and the pain they suffered you still want to believe that the THAT
NO ONE IS LYING IN THAT GROUP WHOM STOLE THOSE CHILDREN LIVES?????//

Then you more of a fool then i read shame on you sir or Madam!   Now for my last word what would you do! no you
would do nothing!!!!!!!!!



Since: Apr 9, 2008
Posted on: December 13, 2011 9:40 am
 

He is not "innocent until proved guilty"

This isn't true, technically or otherwise.  Rather, the jury is required to presume that he is innocent until proven guilty.  Doesn't at all mean he IS innocent.  Any of us with a brain can reasonably conclude that the guy is guilty as hell right now.  But before he can be put away for life, the Constitution requires that he be given due process, including a trial by a jury of his peers in which that presumption is in place such that the prosecutor has the burden of proof rather than the accuser.  It's an artifice, that's all.  A very important one, no doubt, but an artifice just the same.  Those of us who are not on the jury can look at the facts and the news reports and make the obvious conclusions about what a vile creature this guy is.  Sandusky's actual guilt or innocence is what it is--unrelated to what a jury later determines.  If he did these things, he did them--and they've already been done.   However, the law is required to presume his innocence until adequate proof, and to assign the burden of proof to the accuser for that reason.  So let's knock of this nonsense about Sandusky actually being innocent until proven guilty.  He will benefit from that presumption, that's all--the same presumption that the most obviously guilty defendants you can possibly imagine will benefit from.



Since: Feb 13, 2010
Posted on: December 12, 2011 10:31 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

I'm not sure why you feel the need to play devil's advocate, there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence out now I'd hate to be on that jury.  Reading the details makes me ill, sitting through that trial is something that will haunt those twelve people for life.  Unless of course they are a bunch of Penn State homers, whe seem to want to protect the program at every level all the way up through the govenor's office, then they'll happily set minimal bail and probably end up with a hung jury.  We can only hope the feds are eventually involved and sun light is finally shown upon the sespool that is Happy Valley.



Since: Mar 9, 2007
Posted on: December 12, 2011 8:33 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

Ronnie, 
To play devil's advocate, how can any of us say 100% he is guilty or innocent since we weren't there and have really only heard one story? And the second part of your question is more of a what did Joe know and when... I don't know if anyone can fully answer these questions without some form of bias.


The evidence is damning (but that's the point of the GJR), but he is still technically innocent until proven guilty...



Since: Feb 13, 2010
Posted on: December 12, 2011 6:57 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

Does anyone honestly believe Sandusky is innocent and JoePa didn't know?  



Since: Oct 30, 2007
Posted on: December 12, 2011 6:07 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

Nothing like supporting a man that is willing to do the bare minimum when it comes to stopping a child raper (Joe P) and continuing to let the rapist (Sandusky) continue to run a children's charity and keep bringing children around. If you don not see what is wrong with any of this then I hope mercy for your soul
Then actually blame the people that run the charity for letting Jerry stay on.


FantasyQB5
Since: Mar 24, 2009
Posted on: December 12, 2011 4:22 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Nov 26, 2009
Posted on: December 12, 2011 1:39 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

FantasyQB let me make this easy for you and your ignorant supporters A 10 year old was seen being raped or being horsed around with by a 60 year old man. It was talked about by 6 so called men of principal and NOTHING HAPPENED. They let this monster continue to bring children around after knowing this and at the same time let more children's lives be ruined. How do you even stick up for Any if these people. You want to see the Grand Jury indictment try using google, it's not very hard to find. But you being unable to find this just proves how clueless you really are. It's losers like you that allowed Sandusky to co to ur raping children. Nothing like supporting a man that is willing to do the bare minimum when it comes to stopping a child raper (Joe P) and continuing to let the rapist (Sandusky) continue to run a children's charity and keep bringing children around. If you don not see what is wrong with any of this then I hope mercy for your soul



Since: Oct 30, 2007
Posted on: December 12, 2011 12:03 pm
 

2nd version of McQueary 2002 account goes public

Please Roar; stop while you're behind my man. Answer just 2 questions bro. Why was Sandusky dismissed at the zenith of his career? Do you really think Joe Pa had absolutely no knowledge of good old Jerr's issues?Come on dude; even the stupidest Nittany Lion zealot knows that Sandusky was a bit odd, but still allowed full access to PSU facilities even years after his dismissal. Roar; you're making a fool of yourself with your lame explanations for the monster that roamed your campus for over 2 decades.
You are probably right that Joe did know something back in 1998.  Since the DA couldn't even prosecute the best Joe could do was force Jerry out of the program, which he did.  Allowing him full access to the facilities was something that was granted by the higher ups at PSU not Joe.


FantasyQB5
Since: Mar 24, 2009
Posted on: December 12, 2011 11:15 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com