I have a question for all the half-witted, moronic jackals in the news media who -- having simply read the grand jury report of November 2011-- rushed to denounce Joe Paterno for his failure of moral leadership in handling allegations of sexual misconduct against Jerry Sandusky. It's the same question I have for the moronic Pennsylvania state police commissioner, Frank Noonan, who provided fodder for the jackals' feeding frenzy: When did you first learn about Dr. Jonathon Dranov?
Who is Dr. Jonathon Dranov? Well, according to Sara Ganim of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Dr. Jonathon Dranov is a friend and colleague of Mike McQueary's father, who was present when McQueary (called the "graduate assistant" in the increasingly suspect grand jury report) gave "his very first account of what he had seen" Sandusky doing to a young boy in a Penn State shower on 1 March 2002. [Ganim, Dec. 11, 2011]
Unbeknownst to all the incompetent jackals in the news media who prematurely denounced Paterno, Dr. Dranov gave testimony to the grand jury that never found its way into the published grand jury report, probably because it undercuts the grand jury's very conclusions. What did Dranov say? According to Ms. Ganim's reporting, which is based upon a source with knowledge of Dranov's testimony, "it went like this:" "McQueary heard "sex sounds' and the shower running, and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view. Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel."
"Dranov told the grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no." "Because of that response " Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than the police." [Ganim, Dec. 11, 2011]
Wow! If true, we have a whole new set of variables to consider: Do we have a possible answer to all the critics who've decried McQueary's failure to immediately report what he saw to police? Does Dranov's testimony support Paterno's public statement that McQueary "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report." Or does it conflict with Paterno's grand jury testimony, in which he stated that, after hearing McQueary's allegations, he "called Tim 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."
Assuming we can believe Dr. Dranov, why would McQueary change the story he told Dranov -- about nothing sexual happening between Sandusky and the young boy -- when he talked to Paterno the very next day (assuming we can believe Paterno)? Even worse, what are we to make of McQueary's inconsistent testimony, given the following timeline of allegations by or about McQueary?
Alleged Assault Date (Who Said What)
1. March 1, 2002 (McQueary's October-December 2010 hand-written statement to police: ) In his hand-written statement, "McQueary states that he witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower and hurried out of the locker room. He does not mention stopping the assault, and does not mention talking to any police officers in the following days"The whole incident"lasted about a minute"and he wouldn't recognize the boy if he saw him today." [Ganim, Nov. 16, 2011]
But, as Sara Ganim reports today, McQueary's hand-written report to police also says: "I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring." [Ganim, Dec. 11, 2011]
2. March 1, 2002 (McQueary's December 2010 testimony to the grand jury): "He heard rhythmic, slapping sounds [in the Penn State shower]. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He 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. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught."
"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno "The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home , where he reported what he saw."
3. March 1, 2002 (Dranov's 2011 testimony to the grand jury): McQueary witnesses Sandusky and a boy in a Penn State shower and, that evening, tells his father and Dranov what he saw. Dranov asks McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual. McQueary says "no" each time. Consequently, Dranov recommends that McQueary talk to his boss, Joe Paterno, rather than notifying police.
4. March 1, 2002 (Paterno's Jan. 2011 testimony to the grand jury): Paterno tells the grand jury that McQueary met with him on March 2, 2002, appeared to be "very upset" and told him what he witnessed in the shower the previous evening. Paterno reported to his boss, Tim Curley, the very next day and told him that McQueary "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
5. March 1, 2002 (Curley's Jan. 2011 testimony to the grand jury:) Athletic Director Tim Curley (as well as Gary Schultz) met with McQueary on or approximately March 12, 2002. "Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to them that "inappropriate conduct" or activity that made him "uncomfortable" occurred in the Lasch Building shower in March 2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant reported anal sex or anything of a sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely "horsing around.' When asked whether the graduate assistant had reported "sexual conduct' "of any kind' by Sandusky, Curley answered, "No' twice. When asked if the graduate assistant had reported "anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child,' Curley testified, "Absolutely not.'"
6. March 1, 2002 (Schultz's Jan. 2011 testimony to the grand jury): "Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported "disturbing' or "inappropriate' conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student. Schultz was present in a subsequent meeting with Curley when the graduate assistant reported the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and the boy"Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. However, Schultz testified that the allegations were "not that serious' and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred.' Schultz agreed that sodomy between Sandusky and a child would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct. He denied having such conduct reported to him by Paterno or the graduate assistant."
7. March 1, 2002 (Grand Jury report issued on November 5, 2011) The grand jury reports that the graduate assistant at Penn State University witnessed Jerry Sandusky subjecting Victim 2 to "anal intercourse." Moreover, "the Grand Jury finds the graduate assistant's testimony to be extremely credible." The grand also found that the testimony given by Curley and Schultz was not credible and took pains to note that "no one from the university" ever "reported the 2002 incident to the University police or other police agency."
8. March 1, 2002 (Statement released by Joe Paterno on Nov. 6, 2011): "If true, the nature and amount of the charges made are very shocking to me and to all Penn Staters. While I did what I was supposed to do with the one charge brought to my attention, like anyone else involved I can't but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred"If this is true we all were fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families."
"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report."
"Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators..."
9. March 1, 2002 (Statement released on behalf of Joe Paterno on Nov. 7, 2011): According to Sarah Ganim, of the Harrisburg Patriot-News "two days after the report was released, Paterno issued a statement saying he wanted to correct the impression left" by the grand jury report. "Paterno said this week that he had stopped the conversation [with McQueary] before it got too graphic. Instead, he told McQueary he would need to speak with his superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and with Schultz." [Ganim, Nov. 11, 2011]
10. March 1, 2002 (Statement made by Joe Paterno on Nov. 9, 2011 announcing his retirement): "I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief."
This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." [Bold emphasis inserted by writer]
11. March 1, 2002 (Mike McQueary's e-mail released on Nov. 14, 2011): An e-mail by McQueary is released which supplements, amends or contradicts the testimony he gave to the grand jury. First, he writes that he did "stop" Sandusky's anal rape of the 10-year old boy, "not physically " but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room."
Second, McQueary wrote: "I did have discussion with police and with the official at the university in charge of the police"" [Schultz]
12. March 1, 2002 (Statement by Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, on Nov. 14, 2011): "We think we have identified" Victim 2, and he "will also say that what is alleged "never happened'"
13. March 1, 2002 (Suppressed Grand Jury Testimony by Dr. Jonathan Dranov, reported by Sarah Ganim of the Harrisburg Patriot-News today, Dec. 11, 2011): Dr. Dranov testified that McQueary never witnessed any activity in the shower, but heard "sex sounds" and the shower running, before seeing a young boy stick "his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view. Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel."
Dranov "told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no."
Because of that response"Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than the police."
Now, looking at that timeline, can anyone say with certainty precisely what McQueary witnessed and precisely what he told Paterno, Curley and Schultz? Now that the grand jury report has been discredited by the news that the grand jury suppressed the testimony provided by Dr. Jonathan Dranov, which are we to believe -- the grand jury report, which found McQueary "extremely credible," or the testimony of Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Dranov, who all maintain that McQueary never told them what he told the grand jury?
I'm not suggesting that we yet have the answer to that question. What I am saying, however, is that many members in the news media -- including Bob Ford and Frank Fitzpatrick of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Maureen Dowd, Joe Nocera, and Ross Douthat of the New York Times, the execrable Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, Ron Bracken of the Centre Daily Times numerous hacks at the Huffington Post and clowns like Roderick MacLeish, Mark Schlabach, Howard Bryant, Gene Wojciechowski, and Jemele Hill at ESPN -- all swallowed the grand jury report as gospel ON OR BEFORE November 14, 2011, the day that evidence provided by McQueary, Amendola and, today, Dr. Dranov began to cast serious doubt on the grand jury report.
Really, were they all so incredibly stupid as to take the grand jury report at face value? Were they all so ill-informed as to think that the grand jury report was anything but a one-sided summary of the prosecution's case?
And what about the mob that was incited by the moronic jackals in the news media? After all, "a poll done by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism from Nov. 17 to Nov. 20 revealed that during this time period the American public deemed the Penn State scandal the most compelling news topic by a wide margin."
Well, Walter Lippmann said it best: "the more untrained a mind, the more readily it works out a theory that two things which catch its attention at the same time are causally connected." By relying uncritically on the grand jury report to "hook" the Sandusky scandal to a national icon, Joe Paterno, the untrained minds among the jackals inflamed the moral outrage felt by millions of similarly untrained minds across the country. It's like the "weapons of mass destruction" that the press and public simply "knew" were in Iraq.
Now, that there exists evidence to discredit the grand jury report, who among the jackals and jackasses is ready to reassess their knee-jerk reactions?