Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Dr. Jonathan Dranov puts final nail in media coffin regarding Joe Paterno.



No one knows if Joe Paterno will sue Sean Gregory, Time Magazine, Jason Whitlock at Foxsports.com, Jemele Hill, the Philadelphia Daily News and almost every commentator covering college football at ESPN for libel and defamation. Money wouldn't be the motive. All the money could be donated to children's causes and scholarships to the Penn State School of Journalism for any journalism student signing a pledge to not become an incompetent, mob-brained idiot when they go out into the real world. But if Joe Paterno had an open and shut case before against the news media (and he did), that case is now sealed shut completely against the media.

The last nail in the news media's coffin was hammered in a few days ago by Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend of Mike McQueary who also testified in front of the grand jury.

Most people following the events at Penn State already know that Dr. Dranov stated publicly and in his grand jury testimony, that Mike McQueary gave him a totally different account of what he saw in the showers at Penn State than what he testified to in his grand jury testimony.

According to Dr. Dranov, McQueary told him that as he approached the showers, he "heard the shower running" and saw a young boy poke his head out around the corner of the stall, then saw a male adult arm pull the boy back. He then says he saw Sandusky wrapped in a towel leave the shower with the boy.

Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times if he had seen any sexual activity between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary answered "no".

Based on McQueary's answers Dr. Dranov advised him not to go to the police but to report what he saw to Joe Paterno. For the record the Philadelphia Daily News has not run a picture of Dr. Dranov on the front page with the word "Shame". And Jay Bilas at ESPN has not demanded that Dr. Dranov lose his license for "failing to do enough". And I have not heard Stuart Scott on ESPN say of Dr. Dranov, "doesn't he get it"?

While Joe Paterno said from the beginning that he was never told any of the things by McQueary that McQueary told the grand jury, Paterno was not given the opportunity to say exactly what he was told. Penn State canceled Paterno's press conference where he was going to tell what he knew.

Without knowing what McQueary told him but knowing that Paterno had said he wasn't told details or specifics of what McQueary saw, the press simply invented and fabricated what Paterno knew, or just as bad, assumed it, then accused Paterno of not "reporting it" or "doing enough"  based on their fabrications, and demanded he be dismissed because of it.

Now with Dr. Dranov's statement, it is a certainty that McQueary never told Paterno anything more in substance than he told Dr. Dranov. If Dr. Dranov advised him to go to Paterno and not the police based on what McQueary told him, it is not possible that in going to Paterno he would have given him a different and more specific account of what he saw.

Dr. Dranov's statement and grand jury testimony makes a few more things clear as well for those too factually and logically challenged to have not seen this from the beginning: Mike McQueary, as Joe Paterno said in his first statement never told him anything about any sexual contact involving Sandusky and a young boy and it's clear from what McQueary told Dr. Dranov, that he was much too uncomfortable to give anyone, Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno, the whole story about what he had seen. Until he testified to the grand jury.

McQueary's grand jury account is undoubtedly the correct account. It is highly unlikely McQueary would have fabricated what he saw to a grand jury. But now, for those who foolishly swallowed the initial press accounts and believed what they read and heard and not Joe Paterno, there is corroborating evidence that McQueary did not relay exactly what he saw, or thought he saw, whether to Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno.

What impact it will have on the legal proceedings involving Curley and Schultz remain to be seen. If they were told the same thing by McQueary that he told Paterno and Dranov, it will be hard to prosecute someone for not reporting a crime they were never told about in the first place.

But as it relates to Joe Paterno, and those who unthinkly swallowed the nonsense the media was peddlng there is a lot of soul searching that needs to be done, though its always hard for people to admit they were made fools of. And among those that need to do the soul searching are the Penn State trustees and two U.S. senators from Pennsylvania.

 Paterno was the media cash cow in all this. His name and picture were seen more than twice as much as Jerry Sandusky's. He became the story and all as a result of of incompetence, dishonesty and greed and of course the phony facade of protecting children  if you dont think it was phony try finding a media outlet demanding the resignation of the Pope over the institutional child abuse committed by priests with the knowledge of the Pope and other higher ups in the church heirarchy.)

As has been said here before, this is bigger than Joe Paterno. The country is poorer because of a news media with no journalistic standards,  populated by incompetents on every level and motivated by nothing except profits and self interest. Which makes these journalists, the way they practice journalism, and those who believe what they sell a real threat to democracy and American values. In other countries in other times it was called propaganda. And it was very effective.

In Joe Paterno's case we saw journalists like Sean Gregory at Time magazine, Jason Whitlock, Jemele Hill and others report as fact things they knew for a fact they didn't know, and then pontificate about these things, for the sake of a big story as if they inhabited some delusional moral high ground. This time it was Joe Paterno who suffered the temporary consequences. But unless something is done about the media we will all suffer greater consequences. In fact a case can be made that just about all the problems the country has now and has had for the last 15 years can be traced to a news media too incompetent and too cowardly to do the job the Founders envisioned for the news media when they wrote the first amendment. Because the media will not hold politicans accountable for anything if they think it's not in their self interest.and when it comes to government accountablity, self interest for the media is money and access. And they wont endanger either one. For anything.

Committing immoral acts in the name of morality is nothing new. It's what mobs do whether its the Salem Witch Trials or the modern day news media. The media do it all the time. They did it to Richard Jewel in 1996 when without a shred of evidence, labeled him the Olympic Bomber and made his life hell for three months. Jewel ended up suing and settled out of court for tens of millions from NBC, Tom Brokaw, CNN, the Atlanta Constitution and others. But it didnt solve the bigger problem.

The bigger problem is the media's lack of standards which is on display every day whether its politics or policy or "scandals" that arent really scandals. They will inflate anything they think will bring in a bigger audience and generate more revenue even if they have to diminsh and set aside the things that really matter.  They are afraid to report the truth about anything if they think it will cause a backlash that will hurt their bottom line. But they will lie and distort if they think it will make money and they can get away with it. And with the lies they told about Joe Paterno, they believed, in their uniquely sanctimonious way, they could get away with it

The out of control, dishonest media frenzy involving Joe Paterno was as much an abuse of the first amendment as Sandusky's alleged abuse of children.  And just as vile.  And unfortunately for the country a lot more frequent. But maybe this time, if enough people get angry, it will be time for some real accountablity for the news media and there will be demands that wrongs and injustices be made right.

A libel and defamation suit by Joe Paterno against certain news outlets would be absolutely patriotic. But that is solely for Joe Paterno and his family and his lawyers to decide. But there are other things people can do if they are outraged enough to demand accountability.  And there will be more to say about what those things might be, in the future.

UPDATE 11:32 p.m. 12/15/2011. Finally there is some specificity to what Joe Paterno was told by Mike McQueary and what Paterno's reaction was and what he did.  Paterno's previously sealed grand jury testimony was read along with testimony from the stand by Mike McQueary about what he had told Paterno. And in all cases it convicts the mainstream news media of the gross abuse, lying, incompetence, dishonesty and distortion they displayed from the beginning when they not only didnt know the facts of what Paterno knew and what he did,  they knew they didnt know the facts and fabricated lies anyway.

 According to the Sporting News account of what happened in the hearing for Curley and Schultz, "McQueary testified on Friday that he did not go into graphic detail with Paterno about what he had witnessed out of respect for Paterno". This jibes with Paterno's first and only public statement that he was never told any of the things McQueary told the grand jury about what he saw.

According to Paterno's grand jury testimony Paterno  took what he thought was the appropriate action when he told Curley.

“I figured Tim would handle it appropriately,” Paterno told the grand jury. He added: “I didn’t push Mike…because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.  Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, 'Hey we got a problem' and I explained the problem to him,"

Eventually Paterno did meet with Schultz the overseer of the Penn State police with McQueary present.

So now we can substantiate the only facts that had been out there from the beginning, facts which the mass media ignored. McQueary made it clear that he did not go into graphic detail about what he had seen in the shower. Paterno made clear that he knew that McQueary felt  "some kind of inappropriate action" had taken place with Sandusky and a boy.

Paterno called his boss, Tim Curley to tell him what he knew on Monday after he met with McQueary. In one of the most spectacular displays of hypocrisy ever seen, ESPN, one of the loudest voices in criticizing Paterno for "not doing enough", had an audiotape containing admisssions of child sexual abuse related to Bernie Fine and did nothing, called no one, reported it to no one, alerted no one, and never even revealed the existance of the tape for ten years.

Sean Gregory's lie in Time magazine in early November that "Joe Paterno knew a ten year old boy was anally raped in a shower and didnt report it"  when he had not a shred of evidence or testimony to support it, speaks for itself.

McQueary's statements on the witness stand involving his own activity, badly damage his credibility as I point out in a response in the comments section since he contradicts himself repeatedly.

What the testimony of Paterno and McQueary will mean to Curley and Schultz at trial remains to be seen. But it convicts the mainstream media on all counts of lying, distorting, and sanctimonious self-serving incompetence What remains to be seen is exactly what the sentence against the media will be. For those who still want to swallow whole the nonsense they push, it will probably be intellectual diabetes.

UPDATED: 12/21/2011: WHAT BOBBY BOWDEN SAYS HE WOULD HAVE DONE

Former Florida State head coach Bobby Bowden decided, for reasons known only to him, to once again weigh in on Joe Paterno and the results are both headshakingly funny and mind numblingly dumb by both Bowden and the media.  Both Bowden and the media characterized Bowden's remarks as "how Bowden would have handled the Sandusky matter differently".

Here is what Bowden said:

“I’ve tried to think what I would do,” Bowden said, “if one of my coaches had come to me and told me what happened. I would have gone to that guy (Sandusky), asked him if it was true and I would have told him to get away from here and don’t EVER come back. And then I would have gone to the police. I think that’s what I would have done.”

Wait a second. Aside from the utter waste of time of going to Sandusky "to ask if it were true" isnt this exactly what Joe Paterno did? How is this Bowden "handling it differently"? Instead of wasting his time going to Sandusky Paterno went to Tim Curley the Penn State AD and the upshot was Curley made sure Sandusky was no longer allowed on Penn State grounds. And then Paterno went to Gary Schultz administrative head of Penn State campus police, the law enforcement agency with jurisdication.

Aside from Bowden's useless histronicis of telling Sandusky to never darken his door again, Paterno did pretty much what Bowden said he'd do only, just like on the football field, Paterno did it a little better.

Unfortunately the radio hosts were too busy fawning over Bowden to pretend they were actual journalists so they never asked Bowden what he would have done in his fantasy if , when he asked Sandusky if it were true, Sandusky had denied it.  Which is why its always a good idea for people to keep their noses out of other people's business and not pass judgement when they arent standing in the same shoes. Bowden calling what he would do "handling it differently" is not just laughable but embarrassing epecially since his fantasy is predicated on Sandusky doubling over in contrition and confessing all so that Bowden can deliver his exit line. Bowden sounded like he was having the kind of fantasy people have of telling off their bosses.

Only a news media both morally and journalistically bankrupt, and so dumb its painful, could have characterized what Bowden said as "doing it differently". And given Bowden's statement of what he would have done compared to what Paterno actually did, and the media's subsequent treatment of Paterno, one can only wait and see if the Philadephia Daily News will put Bowden's picture on the front page with the word "Shame". Not likely but the list of people who deserve it is growing.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Two of the "pets" of the Left are the Kennedy-sponsored Special Olympics and university professors. Recently, a handicapped Special Olympics participant was allegedly molested in a PSU dorm room by the adult autist somehow assigned as his roommate. Also recently, a young boy was allegedly molested in a PSU football team's shower . In the first case, the Leftist mainstream media ignored the story completely. In the second case, media pressure contributed to the sacking of the faculty member (JoePa) with overall responsibility for the shower room facility. Shouldn't the media be praised for overcoming its innate prejudice in favor of university professors like JoePa?

Anonymous said...

I would like to see a serious law suit and I hope he gets tons of cash for it. He will likely use it well "to make a difference." In the meantime, how do we cause them financial harm? Boycotting them? Not watching? Cancelling subscriptions? I think for it to be effective, there needs to be organization and focus on one media outlet at a time. NBC/NYT? Where do we start?

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely irresponsible that the media has not published more articles like this. We have seen time and time again how sensationalism sells but fact and law are not important. This story should be front page news... Joe Paterno is the last person who should be paying for these crimes but because he is a well known and beloved figure, people are ready and willing to take him down. Shame on the Board of Trustees for firing him. Their only motivation was to get him out of there, which they have been trying to do for years and have been unsuccessful. Why would you ruin a great man at this expense? I hope and pray that the truth comes out soon and that the people involved in creating this spectacle are prepared to face their own judgement day.

PJG1960 said...

If the doctor was told that a rape was witnessed and he didn't report it he'd loose his liscense to practice medicine. That's motive to lie?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "lack of standards," it seems as if you went ahead and ripped off the media outlet (The Patriot-News) that first reported all this without giving anything close to proper credit.

Anonymous said...

What makes anyone so sure that McQueary did not lie to the Grand Jury? Maybe he was frustrated that Sandusky appeared to be untouchable and figured that it is my word against his. McQueary probably is not bright enough to realize that he would be taking the school down along with Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. He has looked like a deer in headlights since the story broke. I believe in the end, McQueary will be prosecuted for perjory. The AG will have no choice after the stink they have made and the charges they have filed against two men.

Anonymous said...

To the first poster. Thank you for providing case and point of why people shouldn't judge until they have all the information or bother to check their facts. And, why if you follow, meekly, mainstream media you will be deprived of key facts to make an informed decision or argument. JoePa did NOT have overall responsibility for the shower room facility. That would be Curly the Athletic director who did. By the way Curly with charges filed, oversight responsibility for 2nd mile and the PSU athletic facilities was NOT fired. The Football Coach is not the one who controls and authorizes use of athletic facilities just as the swim team doesn't control (only uses) the natatorium. JoePa was NOT the one with oversight responsibility for other organizations (like 2nd Mile) using athletic facilities. IMO the media didn't overcome prejudice -- the first story couldn't be twisted and sensationalized enough but the second one could be twisted for great publicity -- topalling JoePa is a great story and guaranteed to sell. I say they didn't bother to relay numerous fine points in an effort to sell their version of the truth.

Anonymous said...

I knew the moment that the story broke that Joe would be the sacrificial lamb. PSU needed something big to offer to combat the horrendous allegations, and Joe was the obvious choice. The media then created a feeding frenzy, indeed at times, seeming to be hell bent on inciting a riot. It was despicable. PSU canceling the press conference was simply a matter of political posturing, letting Joe know who was boss. And I would have fallen for this until the BOT said that the reason they then made the late night announcement of firing Joe was because the press was pressuring them for action. What?!? This whole situation has been a complete nightmare, compounded by the incompetence of PSU to handle itself professionally. They had plenty of time to prepare and fell short. As to the College of Journalism, perhaps that scholarship you recommend should include their PR department which obviously needs an overhaul, as well.

TheRock said...

As has been said here before, this is bigger than Joe Paterno. The country is poorer because of a news media with no journalistic standards. populated by incompetents on every level and motivated by nothing except profits and self interest.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Preach on, brother! I feel like I want to be at a revival. This same stupid thinking and lack of journalistic standards are what brought us Obumbles and his ilk. This is as much of a national security threat as is this horrible economy. In just the same way, the media is sweeping under the rug the AUMF the president is about to sign after the weak petulant Democratic led Senate voted. My personal first step will be to link this post to every major news outlet. Maybe a story on HBO or 60 minutes might punch the country in the gut. Thanks for all your work Marc. My word to the MSM - Asshats. The lot of them. Asshats.

Anonymous said...

I'm all about defending someone's particular honor when he or she has been wronged, but the core issue here isn't exclusively the media's behavior. The media -- to get paid-- simply feeds us what we want to consume.

We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. Nice writeup, but let's face it, we suck as a nation and as individuals and we deserve every shameful, unclean, and hateful outcome we get.

I consider it a miracle that honorable folk exist at all, or in Paterno's case for as long as he did.

Anonymous said...

Hey pjcwhatever

You should lose your license to spell, because you can't do it right with either lose or license.

Ron Haines said...

Paterno was told a coach under his supervision was seen naked in a shower with an underage boy, that's clear, no matter what side you're on. And no matter what side you're on, for him not to report that to the authorities is just plain wrong.

The Spectator said...

On the matter of suing for libel, Joe would probably be considered a public figure, needing he'd need t meet a higher standard to prove libel. It would be difficult. Only the lawyers would get rich.

Anonymous said...

I am waiting to see the headlines saying, "Sorry, Joe." Most of us who follow college sports were appalled by the quick-to-judge reporters. Suddenly everyone had climbed up Righteous Mountain. And for what? To lambaste someone who had done the right thing. Anyone who works knows there is a chain of command, no matter how important you may be. I wish Paterno would sue and hopefully save us all from the holier-than-thou types who pontificate just to hear themselves. Yuck.

Anonymous said...

@ Ron Haines - You are 100% factually incorrect. Jerry Sandusky was forced to retire in 1999 by Joe Paterno. In 2002, Jerry Sandusky, was a Penn State retiree who retained access to facilities (which is common for someone of his tenure).

So..in 2002, Joe Paterno was told non-specific information about a former employee by Mike McQueary, a graduate assistant. Because Mike McQueary seemed shaken, Joe Paterno immediately went to Tim Curley(AD) and Gary Schultz(VP who oversees Penn State police, the badged dept that has law enforcement jurisdiction).
Care to revise your statement?

Marc Rubin said...

"Paterno was told a coach under his supervision was seen naked in a shower with an underage boy, that's clear, no matter what side you're on. And no matter what side you're on, for him not to report that to the authorities is just plain wrong."

Unfortunatly for you, you hit the factually challenged trifecta. You made three statements of fact in one sentence and they are all dead wrong. Actually four if you want to count your saying "it's clear" because obviously for you its not clear at all.

First, you do not have a single clue what Joe Paterno was told. You dont know and this is at the heart of every fabrication told by the media and unfortunately you are one of the people who swallowed it. Where you think you know what he was told is beyond comprehension when the only two people who do know is Paterno who was kept from saying by Penn State, and McQueary who has not said.

Secondly Sandusky was not a coach under Paterno's supervision so you got that wrong too. The incident occurred in 2002 and Sandusky retired years before that.

Third you're wrong again that Paterno didnt report what he knew (which is not what you say he knew, but what he actually knew) to the authorities. He told the two people who were his immeidate superiors Curley the Athletic Director and Gary Schultz,the administrative overseer of the Penn State police. So unless you have information that no one else has including the grand jury,prosecutor and attorney general since Joe Paterno was NOT indicted for failing to report an incident of child abuse, you are exhibit A in why the news media is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Ron Haines said...
Paterno was told a coach under his supervision was seen naked in a shower with an underage boy, that's clear, no matter what side you're on. And no matter what side you're on, for him not to report that to the authorities is just plain wrong.

Huh??? He did report it...

Marc Rubin said...

"Joe would probably be considered a public figure, needing he'd need t meet a higher standard to prove libel. "

Public figures sue and then win. The standard is you have to prove the person making the libelous statement knew what they were saying was false (easy to prove in this case) and you have to prove they knew that the false statements would cause harm. The media not only knew the statements would cause harm they were demanding it by calling for his dismissal.

jj said...

Thank the lord there is a sane, ethical journalist out there! I just hope Joe survives long enough to see his name restored & those who libeled him punished enough to make a difference. They should also be held accountable for his decline in health.

Marc Rubin said...

"..In the second case, media pressure contributed to the sacking of the faculty member (JoePa) with overall responsibility for the shower room facility. Shouldn't the media be praised for overcoming its innate prejudice in favor of university professors like JoePa?"

No because your premises are wrong on every count not the least of which is that Joe Paterno has overall responsibility for the shower room. He does not. That is under the purview of the Athletic Director, Tim Curley. And the news media should never be praised for getting it all wrong and substituting fabrication for facts. Unless you like fascism. a

Marc Rubin said...

"In the meantime, how do we cause them financial harm? Boycotting them? Not watching? Cancelling subscriptions?"

Im going to discuss this in the next piece. I began my professional life in the advertising business creating ads and TV commercials at some of the top ad agencies in New York and in terms of pressure, there are defininitely effective things that can be done.

Marc Rubin said...

"it seems as if you went ahead and ripped off the media outlet (The Patriot-News) that first reported all this without giving anything close to proper credit."

I hardly think relaying information from a news source is "ripping off" anything and if you think it is. then every news outlet in the country including the New York Times "rips off" news. I only refer to other news sources from time to time if I am satisfied its reliable, which it rarely is but in this case I received the news from someone sending it to me in a direct email. If you read the peice you would have read that I said that most people following the events at Penn State already know what Dr. Dranov said. That is not exactly my taking credit for breaking the news and makes clear the news was available from other sources. As such I am not in the business of "crediting" a news source when the story is available at probably hundreds of news outlets. Maybe you need some educating as to what the term "rip off" really means. By the way, where did you rip off that expression? You didnt make up "rip off" did you?

psume06 said...

@ Ron Haines...

Sandusky was not under Joe's supervision. Sandusky was an emeritus professor, and was, therefore, an ACADEMIC, not part of the Athletic Department. But, yeah, go ahead and continue to be wrong.

Aside from that, well done, Mr. Rubin. You are one of the few who clearly does not have his head up his ass.

Anonymous said...

I tried to report to police what really did happen to a boy by an adult male neighbor: Happened in a small town in Ohio.

The police department told us to forget about what happened it was a few years ago.

In reality is that they did not want the 'news' to be exposed in their nice little clean town !! Meanwhile the boy is devastated still.

Who are the 'police?' People like you and me who want to keep their nose clean too...and someone ends up suffering for lack of duty follow-though.

Anonymous said...

@PJ1960, I don't think the doctor has a motive to lie because he only heard it from someone else - its second hand information and he legally need not go to the police with secondhand info as far as i understand it...

Anonymous said...

@Ron'stupid'Haines....i apologize for the name...i could not think of anything better but i will try.....sandusky was an asst. upto 1999...then he was a part of the univ. but not under the 'supervision' of joepa...this is the unfortunate state that marc is referring to...the media has probably said this somewhere sometime (i wouldn't be surprised if they 'forgot' to use the words 'ex' or 'alleged') and you think that is THE story....

Anonymous said...

as a football fan i also want to know if Joe can sue the big ten/commissioner for taking off joe's name from the big ten trophy (i agree this would be the stupidest thing to care about at this point when the allegations most likely are true but here's the point)...the big cashed on the Joe madness/charm/brand and named the trophy after him in 2010...by then joe had already been called for a grand jury hearing and the grand jury started the investigation starting in 2008....now there was chance that joe had something to do with it when he was called and i think the big ten had to oppose the move to name the trophy in the first place....but then the grandjury report comes out...joe is NOT indicted and actually referred to have completed his legal obligation and yet big ten caves in to media pressure and removes his name from the trophy....i don't get it?...what has changed in between that has proven anyone guilty...except the media sensationalism...

Aurabass said...

Ron Haines
Jerry Sandusky has not been a coach under Joe Paterno's supervision since 1999. And you are a perfect example of how badly the Media blew any semblance of ethical journalism in this case.
They took a prosecutors summary of allegations and treated it as fact. We don't have a clue what McQueary said because there are no QUOTES and NO Q&A - just what the prosecutors wanted us to read.
Later today we might know more when the preliminary hearing on the perjury charges is held. In the meantime read this. http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/12/13/2633283/whats-so-grand-about-this-grand-jury-presentment
and you might learn something about the situation. The press won't tell you the truth but others can.

Lieboblogger said...

I'm trying to figure out why I'm hearing about this Dr. Dranov stuff for the first time. Have I been working too hard and missed it on TV? Do I have my head up my ass? Or is this one of those things where the original accusation is all people need to hear while the correction is buried on page 28 of the local paper?

Seriously, why hasn't this been broadcast all over the place, especially on ESPN?

Grammar Bitch said...

I would have appreciated the content of this post much more if you had a better grasp on the correct usage of commas and apostrophes. This "article" is a grammatical nightmare fraught with run-on sentences.

Anonymous said...

Wow you guys just don't get it. Your PSU bias will not allow you to see what everyone else in the world sees except you guys blaming the media. Nothing anyone says will ever convince you that Joe did anything wrong. It's called denial and you guys are filled up with it. Good luck!

Dave said...

"Paterno was not given the opportunity to say exactly what he was told. Penn State canceled Paterno's press conference where he was going to tell what he knew"
Actually, and it seems you hate this, the actual facts are that the explicit rules given to the media before that press conference were that only questions about Nebraska could be asked. Soooo, Joe was not going to tell his side of the story.
Also, once again using facts which real journalists like to use, Mike Mcquesrys testimony states that he told Joe that something of a sexual nature that was highly inappropriate was going on. Why is that not enough for you people?? A 60 year old man was doing something sexual in nature to a 10 year old boy and Joe was told about it.
What more do you people need?? Call the police Joe. I expected more out of Joe.

RatsLinger's Blog said...

"Now with Dr. Dranov's statement, it is a certainty that McQueary never told Paterno anything more in substance than he told Dr. Dranov."

How is this a "certainty"? You're no better than the rest of the media. The only difference being, your rose colored glasses---or should I say PSU Blue colored glasses.

Here is a bit of McCreary's testimony today:

He said Paterno told him he'd "done the right thing" by reporting what he saw. The head coach appeared shocked and saddened and slumped back in his chair, McQueary said on the stand.

Sitting at Paterno's kitchen table McQueary related what he saw. He said Sandusky was involved in 'sexual' act with a child. He did not describe it as sodomy or anal sex. It did describe it as 'extremely sexual,' USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson reports.

Updated 9:41 a.m.: McQueary said over time that evening his decision was to tell Joe Paterno what he saw. When asked why he told Paterno, McQueary said, "He's the head coach and he needs to know what's happening in there," USA TODAY's Audrey Snyder reports.

Eric in Ohio said...

Thank you Rats for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of this blog.

You go on and on about journalists being incompetent and making assumptions...and then show your incompetence by making a massive assumption.

McQuery's testimony today made a mockery of this blog. Are you prepared to apologize to the respectable journalists you've hypocritically slandered here? Doubtful.

Is there no end to the Paterno myopia?

King-Cobra said...

I like what Marc Rubin has written, I do agree with him that the Media witch hunt that lead to Paterno's firing after the News of Sandusky's actions had spread was tragic. However even in light of Dr. Dranov's testimony I do not think that Paterno has a chance at suing the media just because of the fact that McQueary did not see any sexual activity Sandusky was a 60 year old in the shower with a 10 year old and that is inappropriate behavior. While we do not know what Joe knew, we do know he was told of this behavior. As far as we know Joe could have actually tried to cover up the incident, he could of kicked McQueary out and then proposed to Curly and Schultz that they not mention the incident and hoped that it went away. This assumption is not far fetched as the image of Penn State and the money it might cost in college recruiting would be devasting. While the reporting of ESPN and others may be way overboard the facts as Marc Rubin reported himself is that Joe Pa was told of some form of inappropriate behavior, It was never investigated by Joe or Penn St., and it turned out to be a tragic crime. In light of 10 different victims and and 52 reported incidents the press can make assumptions and not be held accountable, and this will be one of those cases, sorry Joe Pa you to are a victim of Sandusky.

Anonymous said...

It sickens and saddens me to see people let a man's on-field accomplishments cloud their vision of his many off-the-field habits of looking the other way. Especially when the latest events involve sexual molestation of children. All of you defenders wouldn't be feeling the same way if JoePa looked the other why while your child or relative was being molested...or allowed that pedophile on campus with more children over the years. It's disgusting that people feel this way, and now that the trial has begun, you'll finally (hopefully) see how wrong you are.

sickofit said...

Regardless of what happens with joe paterno and what he heard or didn't hear. Who cares that mike mcqueary has reportedly changed his story 4 or 5 times since the news broke. I want to know how anyone could have a fair trial after everything that has been said and done? Is there anyone that doesn't have an opinion about what is going on at Penn State? I believe that the media should not be allowed to report anything about criminal charges other than that the person has been charged. No details or anything else that could be incriminating or could change the facts of the case. Let the judicial system handle due process, then when it is all said and done, guilty or not, we can make assumptions.

Marc Rubin said...

"Actually, and it seems you hate this, the actual facts are that the explicit rules given to the media before that press conference were that only questions about Nebraska could be asked. Soooo, Joe was not going to tell his side of the story..."

You might hate this but Joe was going to blow off those rules and tell what he was told which is one of the reasons Penn State officials cancelled the press conference and announced it wouldnt be rescheduled. Soooo Joe was very much going to tell his side until Penn State gagged him.

Marc Rubin said...

".. This "article" is a grammatical nightmare fraught with run-on sentences..."

If you havent read it lately so is the Bill of Rights. Which of course is no excuse..I'm just saying..

Marc Rubin said...

McQuery's testimony today made a mockery of this blog. Are you prepared to apologize to the respectable journalists you've hypocritically slandered here"?

McQueary's testimony made a mockery of your brain. He has told so many versions of what he told to so many people and contradicts himself so many times that while the only points Im making here regard the news media and the brainwashed who swallow their fabrications which, even after McQueary's testimony remains the case, McQueary is shredding his own credibility..

What McQueary actually saw would be indelible to just about everyone. And so would what he told anyone. Yet today he said he "cant be certain" if he ever used the word "intercourse" in derscribing what he saw. Its not credible that he couldnt remember. He just doesnt want to get himself in anymore hot water.And so he waffles.

McQueary sent an email to a friend not long ago which he wanted released that said he DID go to the police and he DID put a stop to what he was seeing.z. Yet in his testimony today McQueary said he did NOT alert police and instead told Curley and Schult "In my mind that is the police. I want to make that clear" said McQueary.

According to the CNN report "when pressed about why he went to university officials and not the police McQueary said 'because it was delicate in nature and I tried to use my best judgement ' ".

One minute he went to the police the next minute he didnt, then he says as far as he was concerned going to Schultz and Curley WAS the police, then a minute later when asked why he didnt go to the police it was because it was "delicate in nature". What is "delicate" about a 10 year old boy being molested in the shower?

For those as challenged when it comes to facts as this commenter and Ratslinger (who obviously slings a lot more than rats) the one thing we know for a fact and beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the media didnt then and doesnt now have one single fact to substantiate that Paterno "knew a boy was being raped in a shower and didnt report it".

He did report it he reported it exactly to whom he should have, and nothing McQueary said contradicts that. McQueary is more concerned about his own vulnerability now so we wont get from McQueary exactly what he told Joe Paterno so he says he "cant remember". He changes his story about going to the police, about what he saw, and whether he stopped it or not

But we know something that even the terminally brain dead should grasp: a grand jury, prosecutor and attorney general who heard all the evidence and all the testimony did NOT indict Paterno for knowing about an incident of child abuse and not reporting it, bu did indict Curley and Schultz.

As for what Paterno was actually told by McQueary that will have to wait for Paterno himself. In the meantime the point of the articles here is still the same and still valid: the news media accused and convicted Paterno of things there was no evidence to support, fabricated facts, and made assumptions with nothing to back it up and nothing regarding that has changed.

My only apologies are to "Grammar Bitch" for any typos, spelling and misplaced apostrophies.

Marc Rubin said...

"You're no better than the rest of the media. The only difference being, your rose colored glasses---or should I say PSU Blue colored glasses..."

I went to art achool in New York so your judgment and assumptions stink as much as the news media. Are you sure youre not a journalist?

Marc Rubin said...

" 'Now with Dr. Dranov's statement, it is a certainty that McQueary never told Paterno anything more in substance than he told Dr. Dranov.'"

How is this a "certainty"?

Maybe I should write this in crayon for you: its a certainty because it corroborates grand jury testimony from Paterno that he was never told the details McQueary told the grand jury AND because after hearing all the witnesses the grand jury, the only body who has all the facts concluded Paterno's testimony was truthful and did not indict him for failing to report child abuse. Get it now?

Anonymous said...

Well written, and clearly what ESPN did was a hate crime, but we've seen their reports on Mike Leach. Everyone knows Paterno didn't do anything wrong, but it's a chance to drink some hatorade, find whomever we can to blame, and make the claim that "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING!" Let's be real, ESPN reported this for money. Since day one it hasn't been about the poor children, Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, or even Joe Paterno. It was about money.

As an aside to this comment, everyone should know that if your ESPN username has SEC in the title, you can get away with anything. I've had 30+ accounts deleted for calling out ESPN, but the day I switched my account to contain SEC, the mods haven't touched my posts, even if they were trolling or derogatory towards ESPN. Once again, displaying their journalistic bias.

Marc Rubin said...

"Here is a bit of McCreary's testimony today:.."

I think McQueary already demolished himself with his testimony and his changing stories but as usual, the small minority like Ratslinger and Eric in Ohio just dont get it so I'll try one more time and if they want me to write it in crayon send a self adressed stamped envelope. For those who dont need crayon:

The news media did not know then, nor do they know now exactly what McQueary told Joe Paterno. No one knows. The only people who know what McQueary told Paterno is the grand jury. They know it because McQueary testified to what he told Paterno. And Joe Paterno testified to what he was told. Under oath. And Paterno said publicly he was never told by McQueary the details and specifics that McQueary finally told the grand jury as to what he saw.

The grand jury did not indict Joe Paterno for perjury. They did not indict Joe Paterno for failing to report child abuse. So they accepted and believed his testimony as true. For Eric in Ohio and Ratslinger and others who think the opposite is true, hopefully youre not operating any heavy machinery.

Anonymous said...

So marc, now that paterno's testimony has been released and HE SAID he WAS told it was sexual, are you going to admit you are just as bad as the media? And he said to the public he didn't know. Oh so your beloved joepa is a liar to the public now? Haha

Marc Rubin said...

I've published an update on the main page but have decided to reprint it here as well.

UPDATE 11:32 p.m. 12/15/2011. Finally there is some specificity to what Joe Paterno was told by Mike McQueary and what Paterno's reaction was and what he did. Paterno's previously sealed grand jury testimony was read along with testinony from the stand by Mike McQueary about what he had told Paterno. And in all cases it convicts the mainstream news media of the gross abuse, lying, incompetence, dishonesty and distortion they displayed from the beginning when they not only didnt know the facts of what Paterno knew and what he did, they knew they didnt know the facts and fabricated lies anyway.

According to the Sporting News account of what happened in the hearing for Curley and Schultz, "McQueary testified on Friday that he did not go into graphic detail with Paterno about what he had witnessed out of respect for Paterno". This jibes with Paterno's first and only public statement that he was never told any of the things McQueary told the grand jury about what he saw.

According to Paterno's grand jury testimony Paterno took what he thought was the appropriate action when he told Curley.

“I figured Tim would handle it appropriately,” Paterno told the grand jury. He added: “I didn’t push Mike…because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster. Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, 'Hey we got a problem' and I explained the problem to him,"

According to the grand jury report, eventually Paterno did meet with Schultz the overseer of the Penn State police with McQueary present.

So now we can substantiate the only facts that had been out there from the beginning, facts which the mass media intentionally chose to ignore. McQueary made it clear that he did not go into graphic detail about what he had seen in the shower which corroborates Paterno's public statement. Paterno made clear that he knew that McQueary felt "some kind of inappropriate action" had taken place with Sandusky and a boy.

Paterno called his boss, Tim Curley to tell him what he knew the Monday after he met with McQueary. ESPN had an audiotape containing admisssions of child sexual abuse related to Bernie Fine. did nothing, called no one, reported it to no one and never even revealed the existance of the tape for ten years.

Sean Gregory's lie in Time magazine in early November that "Joe Paterno knew a ten year old boy was anally raped in a shower and didnt report it" when he had not a shred of evidence to support it, speaks for itself.

What the grand jury testimony of Paterno and McQueary will mean to Curley and Schultz at trial remains to be seen. But it convicts the mainstream media on all counts of lying, distorting, and sanctimonious self-serving incompetence without a shred of journalistic principle.

What remains to be seen is exactly what the sentence against the media will be and what, if any, price they pay. For those who still want to swallow whole the nonsense they push as journalism, as the old saying goes, it probably takes one to know one.

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin, you're living in a fantasy world. You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting facts in an attempt to discredit innocent victims. You're either ignorant or evil.

The fact is Joe Paterno testified under oath that he was told something sexual in nature occurred in the shower between Sandusky and a young boy. He and Penn State did next to nothing for 9+ years. SHAME! Paterno has said himself that he should have done more.

Paterno’s testimony:

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Get your facts straight, Rubin.

Anonymous said...

Hey marc, I love how you left out the part about paterno saying he knew it was fondling AND stated sexual in nature. You also forgot the quote that he didn't call right away because he didn't want to interrupt his weekend. Yes the media added details, but just admit it that you are just as wrong as them.

Anonymous said...

So his first and only public statement was a lie! He didn't know all the details but he knew sexual and fondling so to tell the public he didn't know any is a lie. I agree with the last comment, just admit your defeat!

Anonymous said...

Get real guys.. that was not a 'public statement' that was the grand jurry summery.

Anonymous said...

Also... per today we know that Joe did 'disrupt their weekend' and spoke to the AD and VP the next day.. Sunday..

Moms Hugs said...

Media people jumped into this conjecturing mess after Sandusky's arrest on Nov. 5th. However, NO media outlet - sports or otherwise - picked up on the ORIGINAL reporting about the Grand Jury investigation last March, April or in August. Why not?

I have no inside information, just a hunch, that Joe Paterno was fired because he tried to dictate to PSU's Trustees how & when he was going to resign. He was asked to resign years ago & showed them the door because he could due to the millions brought in by HIS football program. This time he forced their hand. Just sayin'... as someone who knows how executives and corporate boards interact.

Moms Hugs said...

Marc ~ I do agree with you that the media in general are junk-yard dogs out for the 'ride' on the money train. We, the media consumers, need to take a very deep breath & hold it until the trial of Sandusky... if there is one.

mjb said...

When all this first happened, and people asked me how I felt about it, I said it felt like a death in the family. Now it feels like a family member has been murdered.
Pray the whole truth comes out

Anonymous said...

Marc,

You are such a brilliant commenter on the political scene that I have to ask why you aren't doing more of it?

You have spent a great deal of time and column space on one person -- and that's a good thing if you truly believe he has been treated unfairly -- but the country is going to hell in a hand basket and we need your voice back in the fray.

You are able to explain issues to people who often don't have the time or inclination to do their own research; yours is a valuable skill that is desperately needed right now.

Obama is doing terrible things to this country -- so terrible that at times I think he is a 'Manchurian candidate' put here by devious people who seek to destroy America.

Please get back into the political fray -- your voice and wisdom are needed!

Thank you

Tim Lydon said...

We do not even know how Dranov framed his questions to McQuery. And if we can accept that McQueary was unable to share the graphic details with Paterno, why can’t we accept this with Dranov?

The times when McQueary HAD to tell the truth, both in the Grand Jury Presentation (GJP) in the spring of 2008 and his testimony in court yesterday, he recounted the same story:

In the GJP it states that McQueary "saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

Yesterday, he described what he saw "was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on.”

According to the GJP, Paterno said that McQueary "had seen Sandusky in the Lasch building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
Yesterday, Paterno’s testimony was shared: He (McQueary) had seen a person, an older person, fondling a young boy," Paterno testified. "I don't know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn't push Mike to describe it because he was already upset, but it was something inappropriate to a youngster..."

Tim Lydon said...

Again, both in GJP and what was revealed in yesterday’s testimony confirm that Paterno was aware - the day after - of conduct that was sexual in nature done between Sandusky and a child.

Your “final nail,” the smoking gun testimony of Dranover will mean nothing in the end because both instances he was under oath McQueary delivered the same information. Because he didn’t answer definitively what he saw on the night of the incident does not mean he is “not credible,” a term the grand jury used to describe portions of Schultz and Curley’s testimony.

You seem able to forgive Schultz, who was“"very unsure about what he remembered” McQueary telling him, but use Dranover’s testimony as proof that McQueary is unrealiable.

“There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them (them, being Schultz and Curley) that I saw Jerry in the showers, and that it was severe sexual acts, and that it was wrong and over the line.” McQueary said yesterday.

According to the GJP, McQueary said that he met with Curley and Schultz and recounted that he believed he witnessed Sandusky "having anal sex with a young boy."...

Tim Lydon said...

What is interesting is that you condemn McQueary for changing his story but not Paterno. You write that “Paterno had said he wasn't told details or specifics of what McQueary saw…” However, according to the Grand Jury Report, he did go to Curley and had information of “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct.

Also, if Paterno was not told “details or specifics” why did he say he ‘should have done more” at his press conference?
You write that Paterno “was not given the opportunity to say exactly what he was told. Penn State canceled Paterno's press conference where he was going to tell what he knew.’’ You assume that he was going to reveal that he didn’t know anything; that he didn’t know the specifics, the graphic nature, yet you don’t even consider that he could have provided the evidence that would bury Curley and Schultz for good and was discouraged to do so.

You write that “This time it was Joe Paterno who suffered the temporary consequences.” Again, let’s go back to Paterno’s testimony that was shared yesterday: "He (McQueary) had seen a person, an older person, fondling a young boy," Paterno testified. "I don't know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn't push Mike to describe it because he was already upset, but it was something inappropriate to a youngster." These are Paterno’s words. He knew the day after the fact that something of sexual nature took place. Sandusky was then free for the next six years to prey. Who then really suffered from consequences of this inaction?

Finally, you write that “Sean Gregory's lie in Time magazine in early November that "Joe Paterno knew a ten year old boy was anally raped in a shower and didnt report it" when he had not a shred of evidence or testimony to support it, speaks for itself.” Is this a direct quote or your paraphrasing?

In his November 10, article titled “The Firing of Joe Paterno: Why the Penn State Unrest was Senseless,” Gregory writes that “By failing to alert authorities that Sandusky, his longtime assistant, allegedly raped a 10-year-old boy in the Penn State football showers, Paterno simplified the board’s decision, indeed.” Very convenient paraphrasing, indeed.

Anonymous said...

I'll be the first to say I was "blinded" by all the media hype and jumped to thinking that Paterno should've "done more". I do believe he's being used as a scapegoat so to speak by PSU since they're getting a bunch of bad press. Not quite sure why since he seems to be a great coach. I do not however understand why Paterno's kept himself so tight lipped about all this up until now. I'm assuming he was being "advised" to do such that. If it were me though, I wouldn't want to see my reputation dragged through the mud and would be screaming from the roof tops everything I did knowing what information I knew. Maybe that's why it still seems so shady to the "general consensus"...it seems like he's hiding something. Just my $.02 though!

Brian Cuban said...

I am an 83 almuni of Penn State. My feelings about Joe Paterno aside, my commentary is this:

I hope you're not a lawyer or in law school. You need a lot of help if you are. This post is idiotic from a content and analysis standpoint starting with the 1st paragraph.

Not only were the papers and other news/sports outlets reporting on matter of public interest, Joe Paterno is also a public figure. He would have to show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit. Next time at least consult a lawyer before you spew moronic legal ignorance.

For you to speak in terms of absolutes when Dranov's actual grand jury testimony has not been made public is also idiotic. No one has taken the stand in either a civil or criminal trial yet but you are sure of the end result. You clearly have no concept of either criminal or civil litigation.

This post has no credibility on any level other than one person having an opinion among millions of others.

Marc Rubin said...

"So marc, now that paterno's testimony has been released and HE SAID he WAS told it was sexual, are you going to admit you are just as bad as the media? "

So I guess you cant read can you..

Marc Rubin said...

"The fact is Joe Paterno testified under oath that he was told something sexual in nature occurred in the shower between Sandusky and a young boy. He and Penn State did next to nothing for 9+ years"

You are blinded by your own hate and stupidiy and ignorance. Paterno reported what he was told the following Monday, two days after he met with McQueary not 9 years as you ignorantly believe. It was ESPN who did nothing for 9 years with the Bernie Fine tape. Get your hate mongering and phony defense of children straight. Its always the people making the most noise about who is evil that always turn out to be the ones committing the evil.

Marc Rubin said...

"Hey marc, I love how you left out the part about paterno saying he knew it was fondling AND stated sexual in nature. You also forgot the quote that he didn't call right away because he didn't want to interrupt his weekend."

The people who dont want to admit they were made fools of like this one will grasp at anything. He didnt call right away? YOU are in a position to decide what soon enough is? He called two days later. You dont like it? Too bad. ESPN did nothing for 9 years. No one did anything for years. The DA did nothing for years. The school where Sandusky was allowed to pick up his shower victim and take him off school grounds over the objection of his mother did nothing. And you want to justify Paterno's firing and all the news media's lies and fabrications because you dont think he jumped fast enough for you? You and the news media deserve each other. You are as pathetic as they are. Im sure they are grateful for people like you to keep them afloat.

Marc Rubin said...

"So his first and only public statement was a lie! He didn't know all the details but he knew sexual and fondling so to tell the public he didn't know any is a lie. I agree with the last comment, just admit your defeat!"

Is it just a coincidence that the people who still want to defend the news media for all their lies an fabrications have the reading comprehension of a potted plant? Just to make it clear to you, Paterno said he was never given the details and specifics that McQueary gave to the grand jury.

From reports of his testimony:

"McQueary testified on Friday that he did not go into graphic detail with Paterno about what he had witnessed out of respect for Paterno".

Some vague reference to "something of a sexual nature" is not what McQueary specifcally told Paterno. You are just referring to a summary and general conclusion of Paterno's and not Paterno's verbatim testimony so after all this you still dont know what you are talking about. One thing we do know which you conveniently want to ignore - press statements that Paterno was told that a ten year old boy was being raped in the shower was a total lie and thats what was reported. But you dont want to admit the lie do you?

Marc Rubin said...

"I have no inside information, just a hunch, that Joe Paterno was fired because he tried to dictate to PSU's Trustees how & when he was going to resign."

Youre hunch might be a good one that the trustees used this as an excuse to fire Paterno which they have wanted to do for a long time. The fact that substantiates this is that with all the false information put out by the media at the time, and with so much hinging on what Paterno knew, at no time did one trustee pick up a phone and ask Paterno exactly what he knew. Not then, not now. Because it looks like it really didnt matter to them.

Marc Rubin said...

"Marc,

You are such a brilliant commenter on the political scene that I have to ask why you aren't doing more of it?"

Thanks for the compliment and I intend on getting back to the sorry state of our politics and policies. But the connection is that I have always felt that the single biggest contributer to our political and policy problems is how dishonestly the news media does its job. And its been going on for too long. What the media did to Joe Paterno was so blatant, so dishonest, so devoid of any kind of journalistic principle or honesty that it needed to be exposed and addressed and judging by the approximately 100-1 email and comments I've recieved in favor of what Ive been writing, people are finally getting fed up with what passes for journalism in our country. But I will be getting back to politics probably after one more general peice on the news media and what people can do about them.

Marc Rubin said...

"We do not even know how Dranov framed his questions to McQuery."

Actually we do know. Janov said he asked McQueary three times if he saw any sexual contact take place in the shower and three times McQueary told him no. "Any sexual contact" is pretty specific.

Marc Rubin said...

Yesterday, he described what he saw "was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on.”

According to the GJP, Paterno said that McQueary "had seen Sandusky in the Lasch building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
Yesterday, Paterno’s testimony was shared: He (McQueary) had seen a person, an older person, fondling a young boy," Paterno testified. "I don't know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn't push Mike to describe it .."

Two points: "something of a sexual nature" and "fondling a young boy" because McQueary was generalizing is a far cry from media reports that
"Paterno knew a ten year old was being raped in a shower and didnt report it".

Paterno did exactly as he should with what he was told since even the "fondling a young boy" which are Paterno's words, are not specific because he was givent a vague characterization by McQueary.

Second, McQueary said in his direct testimony that what he saw was "severe sexual contact" then says he didnt report it to the police because "it was delicate in nature". Without being able to cross examine, it is hard to know in what way McQueary was describing sexual contact but obviously gave no specifics as to what he meant by "fondling". But we do know this: the grand jury indicted Curley and Schultz for not reporting child abuse and Paterno wasnt.

Marc Rubin said...

"What is interesting is that you condemn McQueary for changing his story but not Paterno."

Paterno never changed his story. His first and only public comment(because the trustees gagged him after making it and cancelled his press conference) is that as far as what McQueary told him, he, Paterno said he "was never told the details and specifics by McQueary that McQueary eventually told the grand jury".

How is that changing his story? All the subsequent testimony supports Paterno's first and only public statement.

Marc Rubin said...

"Joe Paterno is also a public figure. He would have to show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit. Next time at least consult a lawyer before you spew moronic legal ignorance"

Its you who are ignorant and I feel sorry for your clients if you are a lawyer and wonder how you could have passed the bar but thats not my problem. Im not a lawyer but know the law and legal concepts and argument and I have no doubt that on any legal issue I could turn you into sawdust in a court room or a debate. Assuming you arent already sawdust.

You stupidly leave out the first component of libel which is knowing that what you are writing is false. You are clearly a legal idiot.

Marc Rubin said...

"Not only were the papers and other news/sports outlets reporting on matter of public interest, Joe Paterno is also a public figure. He would have to show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit. Next time at least consult a lawyer before you spew moronic legal ignorance."

The other thing that makes you a legal idiot aside from what Ive already pointed out, is that when I described the second component for libel I described it as "knowing that the false statements would cause damage" to the person being libeled. "knowing a false statement would cause damage" to most people with 2c for a brain would indicte "malice."

Maybe you also need to read up on the definition and requirements for defamation. Again, I hope your not a lawyer because you sound like a bad one and the kind that give lawyers a bad name. No wonder you want to remain anonymous.

Marc Rubin said...

"Joe Paterno is also a public figure. He would have to show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit. Next time at least consult a lawyer before you spew moronic legal ignorance"


I really shouldnt waste any more time on a legal idiot like you but just to show that when i call you a legal idiot and a moron Im not just calling you names but describing you accurately since you think you know what youre talking about I am printing the defintition of libel from a legal dictionary:

"Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication."

This fits what happened to Paterno like a glove.

When i said I wasnt a lawyer but could turn you into sawdust in any legal forum I wasnt kidding. You are a jerk. And if you think that's libel sue me.

Anonymous said...

The news media can even make intelligent people(BOT) do evil things. "We had to make a move and fire Paterno at 10:00pm because of media pressure" This is the quote and you dumb ass haters and lame brain media clones need to get a real life. Just remember, what goes around, comes around. You think!

Anonymous said...

Let's act like the media and media lovers. McQuery planned all this and has a motive to bring down Paterno and PSU. He is in bed with the media for big bucks so he can be a sports commentator on ESPN. He wanted to be head coacj. Now, does this sound silly or not.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding article. Very well researched and backed with facts. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

You are a sick man. Based only on what you say Paterno claimed he was told - a 60 year old man in a shower naked with a 10 year old that was no relation to him - he should have sounded the alarm, reported to child services and never let that man on the campus with children again. He did nothing. NOTHING! I don't care what the media said or says about Paterno. He's morally corrupt. And, your bizarre defense of his corruption in the guise of being against "media sensationalism" is merely an apology for someone who would overlook child abuse for the almighty football dollar.

I dare you to print this.

Anonymous said...

I admit that I am not as knowledgeable about this matter as others on this blog so perhaps someone could explain something for me. It is alleged that the PSU shower room was Sandusky's favorite location for sexual activity. Indeed, a PSU janitor and a PSU assistant football coach have made just such allegations against him. What I cannot understand is this : If Sandusky's sexual frequency was anywhere near that of most men (and I doubt not that it was), he must have, over the years, committed hundreds upon hundreds of assaults in that shower room. How could only two people have witnessed such assaults over all those years? Do coaches usually shower at home so they would not necessarily have occasion to see Sandusky "at work"? Did Coach Paterno, as Head Coach, have a private shower? It's all quite confusing.

curmudgeonly-eccentric said...

Great, is every adult in State College a pass-the-buck slimebag? Paterno, Dranov, Curley, Spannier, maybe that town should just be nuked.

Marc Rubin said...

"Based only on what you say Paterno claimed he was told - a 60 year old man in a shower naked with a 10 year old that was no relation to him - he should have sounded the alarm, reported to child services and never let that man on the campus with children again. "

Actually its you who are not only sick but your reading comprehension is on life support and your ability to assimilate information is pathetic.

Paterno did every one of the things you say he should have done, it's common knowledge, it's in the grand jury report and its only because you are obviously a trained seal for the news media, have no reading comprehension and are wrapped up in your own sanctimonuous fantasies that you dont know it.

Marc Rubin said...

".. perhaps someone could explain something for me. It is alleged that the PSU shower room was Sandusky's favorite location for sexual activity..."

I dont know where you saw, read or heard such an allegation but it is false. What McQeary witnessed as a first time only time incident at Penn State involving Sandusky, there is nothing in any grand jury investigation to indicate otherwise and no one with any credible information has alleged anything different. The allegation is false based on every current investigation including the grand jury investigation and had it been credible anyone with any such knowledge would have been indicted by the grand jury for failing to report child abuse. To date the only people indicted on that count has been Tim Curley and Gary Schultz for allegedly failing to act on the information given to them by Paterno and McQueary about this one incident.

Anonymous said...

"first time only time incident at Penn State"

Do you really believe that pedophiles have sex only once a year? decade? lifetime? They have sex MORE OFTEN than non-pedophiles. They wake up thinking of children and go to sleep thinking of children. Sex with children defines them. It's what they do. You can bet that Penn State shower room was a regular trysting spot for Sandusky.

It seems that most Paterno defenders now believe that Sandusky must be exonerated in order for Paterno to be exonerated. The resulting defenses of Sandusky are sickening. Stop defending the indefensible.

Anonymous said...

Dranov knows he's on thin ice. Pennsylvania state law, Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311, lists "licensed physicians" among those who are required to report suspicions of child abuse and neglect.

McQueary's memory seems shoddy, changing and convenient to suit his situation. His promotion to Coach seems oddly-timed, and one wonders if that is what sealed his silence for 10 years.

Paterno's excuses are amazing. He didn't know that boys can be raped? He thought that following university procedure was the highest priority? Really? He told McQueary that "you did what you had to do," (IOW, your job is over, lemme handle it). Now Paterno would "figure out what we want to do." Really, Joe? Why not report it, as is required in 18 states?

It seems likely that over a 9.9 year period, both Paterno and "Big Red" McQueary would see Sandusky on campus, and perhaps with a young boy in tow. How about at the Alamo Bowl? And why did Sandusky get preferential treatment to see Paterno's 400th win? Amazing...

State law encouraged them report. Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6312: "Any person who has reason to suspect that a child is abused or neglected may report."

Anonymous said...

This information is priceless. Where can I find out more?
my webpage > Posted by My Industrial Injury Claims.com

Anonymous said...

The author of the piece and most the commentors are moron's.

Just for the sake of argument consider Dranov is lying?

Of course he is, Why were sex sounds in the shower not enough to inform police anyway? That's a rediculous point of view. That's why Dranov "doesn't get it". No, think about it, Dranov pushed McQueary in the direction that would protect Penn State. That's obvious, he loses all credibility. Now he has to cover-up that he did that. That's the way it looks to me. Lots of hide the pedophile(s) going on.

Marc Rubin said...

"...Just for the sake of argument consider Dranov is lying?"

Only a true moron would ask a question and make a supposition based on their own self deluded fantasies for which they have not a shred of evidence and then draw a conclusion. And since McQueary's sworn testimony at trial under oath corroborates most of everything Dranov said he was told, you have passed the threshold of being a moron into imbecility.

Marc Rubin said...

"The author of the piece and most the commentors are moron's.

Just for the sake of argument consider Dranov is lying?.."

From todays Sporting News on the Sandusky guilty verdict:

"...Jurors also reheard the testimony of a McQueary family friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, who said that McQueary told him a different version of the story that didn't include sexual contact.

McQueary, however, also testified that he hadn't told Dranov everything that he saw."

You have now officially gone past the moron stage, passed imbecility and are now declared officially brain dead.