<p>I am lost, Sandusky is innocent because some other embezzling case did not go well for the prosecutor?</p>
<p>Sandusky is innocent because he hasn’t been proven guilty. He may never be proven guilty, even if he committed crimes. It is possible–although in my opinion, pretty unlikely–that he is innocent of crimes, or at least, not all the ones he has been accused of. The point of the embezzling case is that sometimes false accusations are made, and they can seem open-and-shut if you’ve only heard one version of the evidence. But sometimes they unravel when the case goes to trial.</p>
<p>And sometimes guilty people are convicted. If I cite some other unrelated case, would that make my point stronger too?</p>
<p>My point is that people should understand what a grand jury report is.</p>
<p>Sandusky is entitled to a fair trial, but the overwhelming evidence that keeps coming out, about the many victims/accusers, about who knew what and when they knew it–for a decade–is that he is a despicable molester.</p>
<p>I just hope justice is served.</p>
<p>And if he is guilty, it would be virtually impossible that no one at PSU knew or suspected that he was molesting a lot of those little boys he was always parading around, yet no one ever stopped him. That is the even more outrageous part.</p>
<p>abcnews is reporting that a family friend of McQueary’s is calling his testimony into question, saying that McQueary had told him the night of the incident that he never saw sex.</p>
<p>Tomorrow is going to be nuts.</p>
<p>Youdon’tsay, an article went up about that yesterday on the Patriot News website. It’s a pretty explosive claim.</p>
<p>[Another</a> version of Mike McQueary’s story about Jerry Sandusky surfaces | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html]Another”>Another version of Mike McQueary's story about Jerry Sandusky surfaces - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>Strange that given what Dranov claims, the Grand Jury found McQueary’s testimony credible. Would there be any motivation for Dranov to make his statements? It certainly would be a “gift” to Sandusky.</p>
<p>Did the grand jury report mention that there was another person there when McQueary went to his father? I don’t remember hearing of Dranov before, and the report sure doesn’t mention his testimony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not going to help Sandusky much. He’s guilty and there are other counts, even without independent witnesses. </p>
<p>It will help Curley and Schultz, who now appear to have been gratuitously charged with perjury (in advance) because their testimony didn’t dovetail with what the prosecutor was able to get McQueary to “say”. And even that appears to be at variance with the GJ summary: from the ABC news report…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This reinforces the basic point that tom1944 is trying to make.</p>
<p>And Dranov seems to claim he was there from the very first with McQueary’s father listening to the account “from the horses mouth”. He’s obviously a trusted friend, and would have high credibility to a jury considering he’s a doctor.</p>
<p>My. Dranov says the reason he recommended McQ go to Paterno and not police is because McQ didn’t see anything sexual. Very nice fit for the PSU officials.</p>
<p>I’d like to know more about Dranov’s relationship with the university. According to that story, there are now three versions of that night: McQ’s, Dranov’s and Amendola’s/Sandusky’s. Well, and what various PSU officials said they were/weren’t told.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Board</a> of Directors | About The Foundation | Foundation](<a href=“http://foundation.mountnittany.org/about/board-of-directors]Board”>http://foundation.mountnittany.org/about/board-of-directors)</p>
<p>^^^ Thank you. That’s about what I figured.</p>
<p>I would like to hear from Dranov himself instead of an unknown source stating that Dranov is making this claim. Hopefully, it won’t be long to hear from him in the hearing. There is also McQueary father who was there, and what did he hear that night?</p>
<p>My prediction: the perjury cases will be delayed, and ultimately dropped. Sandusky will plead, and if he doesn’t, the McQueary testimony won’t be part of the trial. The guys accused of perjury won’t get their jobs back. Everybody involved will feel like justice wasn’t fully done.</p>
<p>“abcnews is reporting that a family friend of McQueary’s is calling his testimony into question, saying that McQueary had told him the night of the incident that he never saw sex.”</p>
<p>"In 2007, Penn State named Jon Dranov Renaissance Person of the Year. He has also served Penn State as a member of the Alumni Council for six years and spent 10 years on Penn State’s Eberly College of Science Alumni Board. "</p>
<p>Not too surprising. The wagons have been circling for over a decade now.</p>
<p>“I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring.” </p>
<p>I don’t see how this statement contradicts anything McQ said in GJ report.</p>
<p>^^Alumni council and alumni board are not a surprise for a local doctor, Renaissance person is a fundraising benefit dinner that has been going on forever. But I get what you mean.</p>
<p>Local news is reporting that all 10 alleged victims and Mike McQueary are expected to testify during the proceedings tomorrow. Sandusky’s lawyer continues to insist that there will be no plea bargain.</p>
<p>
From this point forward, any evidence that seems to be in Sandusky’s favor will be interpreted as really showing how deep the conspiracy goes. If by some chance he is innocent, he’s in a tough spot.</p>