Saturday, January 12

Duke, Penn State, and the Elephant in the Room

There are many parallels between the rushes to judgment in the Duke case and at Penn State.  The biggest difference between the two is the missing elephant at Duke.

Ray Blehar

Not too long ago someone posted Coach K's interview with CNN's Piers Morgan.  Coach K stated that the  PSU BOT should have handled things differently with regard to Paterno's dismissal -- and I think most people agree with that.  However, the most interesting part of the interview came at about the 1:00 minute mark when Piers asked:

"if such a situation had happened at Duke..."

Piers was talking about having a Sandusky like situation where someone is "innocent until proven guilty" and how the school should respond in such a situation.

I guess with the passage of time people forget.  Duke had a very similar rush to judgment with it's lacrosse team, who were immediately found guilty (by the media and the Duke administration) of raping a stripper.

The parallels in the case are quite striking.  Briefly:
-- an individual levied false charges at people at the university
-- a witness close to the individual did not corroborate the accuser's allegations
-- the accuser gave inconsistent accounts of the incident
-- the prosecutor pressed charges without possessing key evidence
-- the university and the media rushed to judgment and threw the accused under the bus immediately
-- evidence later came out that cleared the accused (most of us are waiting for the upcoming trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to do just that).

Let's get to the specifics.

The Accusers

In the Duke case, the accuser, Crystal Mangum (a stripper), told police that members of the Duke lacrosse team raped her after her performance at one of the homes of the Duke players.   Mangum had been taken into custody by the police after an incident at a supermarket parking lot, where she refused to leave the car after an argument with the other stripper who worked the Duke party.

In the Penn State case, the accuser, Mike McQueary, told the police that he saw Sandusky doing something sexual with a young boy in the showers and that he had passed on the details to University officials.  The police were led to McQueary by an anonymous tip that he had told others about this incident in a chat room.

The Witness

In the Duke case, Mangum's co-worker, Kim Roberts, refuted Mangum's account of the rape. In her initial statement to police, Roberts said she was with Mangum the entire evening, except for five minutes.  Roberts was incredulous when she heard that Mangum had levied rape charges.

 In the Penn State case, Dr. Jonathon Dranov, refuted McQueary's account of him witnessing a sex act in the showers.  Dr. Dranov asked McQueary on three different occasions what he had seen and on none of those occasions did McQueary admit to seeing anything.  Dr. Dranov indicated the incident happened behind a wall and that McQueary saw an arm reach out and pull the child back behind the wall.


In the Duke case, Mangum initially told the police she was raped by twenty white players, but later reduced the number to three.  Mangum did not consistently choose the same three players when asked to identify them from photographs.  Also, she changed the time of the alleged rapes, first saying the occurred between  11:35 PM and midnight, which was refuted by phone records and photographs of her performing at the party.  Mangum reported several different accounts of the rape incident to the police, changing the details of how she was abused and who the attackers were.

In the Penn State case, McQueary initially told the police he looked into the showers twice.  After being hammered in the press for not stopping the alleged assault, he changed his stories to looking three times  and making sure the assault was stopped.  McQuery's testimony under cross examination at the preliminary perjury hearings in December 2011 was vague regarding what he told PSU officials (more on this in an upcoming blogpost). Finally, McQueary originally testified that the incident took place in 2002, but later the date was changed to 2001.

The Prosecutor Doesn't Have Evidence

In the Duke case, DA Mike Nifong, the prosecutor, ordered DNA testing of 46 of the 47 members of the Duke lacrosse team - excluding the one black player.  On April 10, 2006, the results came back showing that none  of the players' DNA was found on Mangum.  DA Nifong stated he had other evidence that would prove his case. On April 18, 2006, two players, Seligmann and Finnerty, were indicted on rape, kidnapping, and other charges.  On May 15, 2006, a third player, David Evans, was indicted for rape, kidnapping, and other charges.

In the Penn State case, then AG Tom Corbett initiated the investigation, but Linda Kelly had taken over by the time the investigation involved PSU.   John McQueary, Joe Paterno, Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz were called as witnesses to verify McQueary's account. The anonymous tipster, nor anyone else who may have been in the chat with McQueary were not called as witnesses. Only one of the witnesses, Paterno, testified to an account that may have corroborated McQueary's allegations of a sexual assault.  Paterno later made a statement that he was not told of any of the specifics outlined in the grand jury testimony.  Despite the fact that the prosecution had no corroborating witness to the account McQueary told to Curley and Shultz, she charged both men with perjury and failure to report child abuse.  One year later, she levied perjury, failure to report, child endangerment, and criminal conspiracy against former PSU president, Graham Spanier.  She added the criminal conspiracy and child endangerment charges against Curley and Schultz.

The Rush To Judgment

In the Duke case, the University president, Richard Brodhead, made a decision to forfeit the next two lacrosse games, then eventually suspended the rest of the games that season.  He placed the players who had not yet graduated on suspension from the school.  The lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, resigned over the scandal (later revealed he was forced).  The media framed the incident a privileged white athletes committing crimes against a black victim.  The public was outraged over the allegations and protested outside the players homes and at the courthouse. A candlelight vigil was held for the victim as part of a "Take Back the Night" march organized by students. DA Nifong used this characterization of the incident to his advantage, winning a close, racially polarized election.

In the Penn State case, the co-chair of the Penn State Board of Trustees, John Surma, made the decision to cancel Paterno's Tuesday morning press conference and fire President Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno.  AD Tim Curley was placed on adminstrative leave and Gary Schultz went back into retirement.  Paterno announced his intention to retire at year's end, but the BOT (led by Surma) terminated him shortly after he announced his retirement.  The media has framed the incident as top university officials and Paterno sacrificing children for the sake of the football program and the prestige of Penn State.  The public was outraged over the details (mostly false) contained in the grand jury presentment.  A candlelight vigil was held for the victims.  A fundraising effort to promote child abuse awareness was organized by students. Former AG Tom Corbett slow rolled the Sandusky investigation to not upset PSU supporters prior to the 2010 gubernatorial election and won the election by close to 10 points.

Evidence Reveals False Charges and Malicious Prosecution

In the Duke case, the DNA inconsistencies were announced in April 2006, yet Nifong pursued the case, essentially using Mangum's testimony as the evidence of rape and the other charges.  On December 22, 2006, Mangum admitted that she was not sure that she was raped.  Nifong dropped the rape charges, but continued to pursue the charges of kidnapping and other sex crimes.  On December 28, the North Carolina state bar filed ethics charges against Nifong for abuse of prosecutorial discretion by withholding the DNA evidence from the defense.  In January 2007, Nifong asked to be removed from the case and the case reassigned to the Attorney General, Roy Cooper.  In April 2007, Cooper proclaimed the Duke students innocent of all charges.

In the Penn State case, the inconsistencies in McQueary's story began almost immediately after the grand jury presentment was announced. On November 15, 2011, McQueary leaked an e-mail stating that he had broken up the incident and reported it to the police.  In December, McQueary testified that he had looked into the shower three times, not two as he previously testified and that he had slammed his locker to break up the activity.  In this original account of the incident, he looked twice, then immediately left the locker room. Under cross examination in December, McQueary stated he only told his father, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz about the incident.  Apparently, Mike forgot about all those people he told in the chat room.  However, when asked who he told between observing the incident and reporting it to Curley and Schultz, he stated he could not remember if he told anyone else.  This begs the question, did McQueary tell other people who don't corroborate his story?   Perhaps, the AG knows the names of some of the "chatters," but has not revealed them.

The Elephant in the Room

What differentiates the Penn State case from the Duke case is the "elephant in the room."  In other words, an obvious truth that is being ignored.   That elephant is the role of The Second Mile Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz in not protecting the children of Second Mile from Jerry Sandusky

From the beginning, anyone who has followed this case knows the PSU AD Timothy Curley reported the Sandusky shower incident to Dr. Raykovitz, who was/is a mandated reporter under the law and should have immediately reported the incident to either CYS or DPW.   Raykovitz admitted discussing the incident with TSM board member, Bruce Heim, who considered it a non-incident.   As such, it was not shared with other TSM board members nor reported to authorities.

Inexplicably, AG Linda Kelly did not charge Raykovitz or Heim with failure to report or with child endangerment.  Also, in his opening statement at the Sandusky trial, prosecutor McGettigan stated that no one at Second Mile knew or had heard anything about Sandusky's abuse.

The Penn State BOT, who quickly threw its officials under the bus, made no mention that TSM should have reported it upon being informed by Curley.  The lawyers on the BOT could have easily justified that PSU officials complied with the law by reporting to TSM and defended the University.  Instead, they rolled over.

And the media has been stunningly silent on the matter, even though they often referred to TSM as a "victim farm" of Sandusky.

The Impending Investigation of the Sandusky Case

Recently elected AG Kathleen Kane stated the investigation of the Sandusky case would be among her top priorities once she takes office.  She will hire an assistant attorney general to lead the investigation and she vows to leave no stone unturned.  This will take time to get going, but we anxiously await that investigation.

However, I have a suggestion for Ms. Kane about what she should do immediately after being sworn in....

...charge Dr. Jack Raykovitz with failure to report child abuse and with endangering the welfare of children.


  1. Ray, I disagree with the premise about Raykovitz. You are damning him without evidence in the same manner that the press and the public are damning Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno without knowing exactly who told what to who and when......

    If one operates from the premise that McQueary saw nothing other than Sandusky in a shower with a kid.... and that's what he told Paterno/Curley/Schultz.... and that's what Curley told Raykowitz..... then what is there to report?

    It is not child abuse for an adult to shower with kids.... I have heard accounts that it was known that Sandusky would do this.... he had done it for years....

    it was one of "Jerry's quirks".....

    We swam naked for swim class in high school in the 1970s.... that was acceptable then... it would be unthinkable now....

    Times change.... people presumed Jerry didn't change.... that made him quirky, not a pedophile...

    I live in State College.... I know people who worked closely with Jerry at Second Mile.... in 2001, the suggestion that Jerry Sandusky was a serial predatory pedophile would have struck Jack Raykowitz as preposterous.... he would have interpreted Tim Curley's concerns as being "Jerry being Jerry" and, "Yeah, Tim, I understand your concerns, we'll have him keep the kids away from campus from now on."

    The point is that Tim Curley didn't think Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.... and neither did Jack Raykowitz....

    The guy had been investigated in 1998 and, "they didn't find anything."

    Now, we all know now that it wasn't a case of them "not finding anything". It was a case of, "...they found plenty, but Seasock's report made the case unprosecutable." But Curley didn't know that... and neither did Raykowitz....

    I've argued with friends about the effect that the 1998 invistigation would have on 2001 responses. It has been suggested that the fact that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 should have increased people's suspicions in 2001...

    I argue that it would have the opposite effect....

    I'm a doctor.... when you are seeing someone with chest pain, and you do a stress test on them and the stress test is negative.... you tend to be less concerned about the possibility that your patient has a heart condition when the chest pain continues - even though we doctors know damned well that stress testing is a very flawed method for ruling out coronary disease...

    If you are Tim Curley and Jack Raykowitz in 2001.....and you know that Jerry Sandusky was investigated by the DA in 1998 for alleged child abuse, and the DA didn't find anything..... and Mike McQueary comes to you in 2001 saying he saw Sandusky in a shower with a kid.... and you know that Sandusky has been showering with kids for years.... and you think you know Jerry Sandusky.... and you know he's wierd as could be but he loves kids, and he's good with kids.... and the thought that the guy is a predator never begins to cross your mind....

    I ask again, what is there to report?

    I loathe the second-guessers of our culture.... the journalists... the legislators... the lawyers... the people who make their livings by being able to sit back with the benefit ot time, perspective, and the gift of 20/20 hindsight and criticize the actions of people making decisions on the fly in the middle of a typical workday where the shit is hitting the fan and you have no clue which of the dozens or hundreds of decisions you will make that day will come back and bite you in the ass 5-10 years later...

    To criticize the decisions made by Jack Raykowitz in 2001 is just as disingenuous as to criticize the decisions made by Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier....

    We want to blame someone.... but, in fact, Sandusky was just smarter than everyone else....

    Just one guy's opinion....

    BTW..... love your work.....

    Bob Mooney

  2. Bob,
    Appreciate the comment. You make some great points, however, I think you have to admit that Raykovitz has much less leeway in not reporting this authorities.

    You are a doctor and a mandated reporter. You know what the rules are.

    Go back and look at our stuff on 1998. I assure you that the incident was not fully investigated. It needs to be.


    1. And I should add that the money tells the story of what Raykovitz and Genovese knew in 1998.

  3. See Bill Keisling's article about DPW and CYS covering for Sandusky...this is related to the point above on 1998.

  4. Think the key point in all of this is: WHY were Schultz, Curley, Spanier indicted but Jack Raykovitz was not? Why were ONLY Penn State employees indicted - but everybody else got off scott-free?

  5. Good point, Jeff Williams and Jack Raykovitz is considered a mandatory reporter...He's been seen drinking and carousing the bars in State College care free...When WILL the hammer come down on him for his actions or lack of actions?...

  6. Ray - The primary internet blog that helped expose the Duke case was /is Durham in Wonderland, managed by KC Johnson. KC also posts at Minding the Campus, at which I have seen at least one of your posts. I have had private e-mails back and forth with KC in addition to posting on the sites. To my surprise, he is adamant about the guilt of PSU, Paterno, Spanier, etc. He bases most of his opinions on the Freeh report.

  7. I quote KC in my upcoming report. He charges that no one has proven a single fact wrong in the Freeh Report. I answer his charge with a list of 20 errors and omissions that essentially negate all of the findings the NCAA used to sanction PSU. Tell him that list will be out in February.

  8. If, as you so passionately argue, Jerry was the victim of false accusations and malicious prosecution, exactly what was the child abuse which Dr. Raykovitz failed to report?

  9. I've argued nothing of the sort. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are victims of malicious prosecution and false accusations.

    As for Dr. Raykovitz, he should have done as Schultz and Courtney did...reported the matter to the authorities. Then instead they'd have had two reports to deal with instead of just one....from Penn State.

    Let's see the Commonwealth try to prove that Schultz didn't make the report.....I'd love to get Sassano, Lauro, and Smith on the stand to find out how they know Schultz didn't report the incident. Records are expunged after 120 days. So, they are claiming they know this from their memories. Good luck with that.

    1. You argue that Mike testified falsely against Jerry. If you believe that, you must believe that Jerry deserves a new trial. After all, it's not fair to defend only certain victims of Mike's false testimony, such as Joe, Tim, Gary and Graham, and leave another such victim, Jerry, languishing in prison. Frankly, I believe that Mike testified truthfully and that they're all guilty as hell, but you're entitled to your opinion. You should just be consistent.

    2. No, I believe a least five people lied on the stand at the trial. I'm on record for Petrosky and Sassano. It was proven at trial that Rossman and Leiter lied. Add McQueary and that's five.

      I believe Sandusky is guilty. I've said that numerous times based on the evidence from 1998.

      I have no way of knowing how the courts will rule on this. If they find the prosecution suborned perjury, then it could be ruled a mistrial. If there is misconduct by the prosecution, Sandusky could not be retried because of double jeopardy. The state would have to bring new witnesses.

      I have been consistent all along. You're posting things that I've never said....twice in a row.

    3. BTW, this post is about McQ testifying falsely in the perjury case against Curley and Schultz.

    4. If you believe that there was pervasive perjury at Jerry's trial, you must believe that notwithstanding alleged acts in 1998 for which he was never tried, justice requires his release until such time as he may be tried for such 1998 crimes. As much as I disagree with your conclusions, I must admit that you make the best case for Jerry's innocence I've read. You can't make such a strong case for Jerry's innocence and then offhandedly say that you still think that he deserves to remain in prison for something he did 15 years ago for which he was never tried. Where's the justice in that?

  10. Again, I've said nothing you implied above and you have the facts wrong.

    He was tried for the 1998 charges and convicted.

    I never said he shouldn't be released from prison.

    He cannot be released until a mistrial is declared. Personally, I believe that should happen because he did not get due process of law. The state can bring new accusers, which they surely have, as twenty people have approached PSU for settlements.

    If he's released, it will only be a matter of days or hours before he is charged and locked up again.

    I've not made a case for his innocence. I've made a case that he didn't get due process.

    Also, many believe, as you do that I have put some reasonable doubt on his guilt. There are many that believe he is innocent. I'm not one of them.

    I appreciate your comments.

  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. Ray, I agree that if you charge Schultz, Curley, and Spanier, then you have to charge Raykowitz. If you don't, then it's inconsistent logic saying only the PSU people are responsible. If TSM people found it to be a "non-incident" then maybe it was and no one should be charged.

    Also, the person who made the "anonymous tip" didn't just know about McQueary seeing Sandusky, they would have had to know that the AG office was investigating Sandusky because the tip was received after Victim 1 came forward in 2009. But, the investigation was not publicly known about until the article in Spring 2011 after PSU was already involved. How did the tipster know about both McQueary and the Sandusky AG investigation?

  13. Rums Du,
    Let me correct something for you. Raykovitz should be charged because he failed to report. PSU officials should not have been charged because Schultz/Courtney MADE a report. An organization only has to make one report, therefore at most, only one person should be charged -- the top official. For Second Mile, that's Raykovitz.

    From reading Silent No More and from discussions I've had with people who played at the Second Mile golf tournament in 2010, the investigation was not a well kept secret. In Silent No More, they write there was a lot of message board chatter in 2010 about Sandusky messing with kids. So, the tipster probably got wind of the investigation through the chat and called the Centre County DA, Stacy Parks Miller. The tipster did not call the AG or state police.

    1. Ray,
      If what you say is correct, and can be proven then the PSU part of the overall scandal is alot to do about nothing. How can they be charged for not reporting if they did?

    2. The same way Nifong was trying to prosecute the rape charges without DNA evidence. This scandal is going the way of the Duke case...just a matter of time before Kelly and the AG get exposed.

  14. Second Mile certainly deserves greater scrutiny, but why are you focusing on a small fish like Raykovitz? Why don't you pursue the connections between the big fish at PSU and the big fish at Second Mile? For example, Paterno, Schultz, Poole, Schreyer and Weiler were up to their necks as investors and officers in The Village at Penn State. According to Sarah Ryley at the New York Daily News, Paterno even went on vacation to the Bahamas with Second Mile board chairman Poole and other board members. Why aren't you exploring these PSU-Second Mile connections? Raykovitz is a nobody. Why don't you take on Schreyer, Paterno et al?

    1. There were connections between lots of people at Penn State and The Second Mile but how does that translate to all of them being aware of Sandusky's behavior? Pedophiles hide in plain sight. The people you mentioned may have had business dealings but that doesn't make them guilty of anything. Jack Raykovitz was 1)a trained and licensed psychologist, 2)responsible for the children at TSM as the CEO, and 3)informed about questionable conduct by Sandusky, and 4)a mandated reporter. Let's not let conspiracy theories run amouk.

    2. The State of Pennsylvania has charged Schultz and Spanier with acting with Paterno to cover up the scandal. You have charged Raykovitz and Second Mile with covering up the scandal. Why then is it not INCREDIBLY relevant that Schultz, Spanier and Paterno did business deals with Second Mile board members? These aren't just "lots of people" at PSU and Second Mile. These are individuals who have been alleged by the STATE to have covered up the scandal or are board members of an institution alleged by YOU to be the true source of the scandal. You can't dump these powerful individuals who shared financial dealings in the same pile with some guys who merely attended a Second Mile golf outing. I don't think that "lots of people" at PSU swapped tanning lotion with Second Mile board members on a Bahamas beach. I never said that anyone at Second Mile is guilty of anything; you did that. I simply made the logical suggestion that your attention should be focused on those Second Mile people who, unlike Raykovitz, had financial dealings with already INDICTED people at PSU. Why is this so unreasonable?

    3. See today's post. Business deals with Second Mile were the domain of the PSU BOT....not Paterno, Spanier, Curley, or Schultz.

      Check the donor lists of Second Mile. You won't find the accused names there. You will find the BOT members though.

      You really need to do some fact checking before you post your nonsense. You are truly pathetic.

    4. Are you saying that Joe wasn't an investor with Chairman Poole of Second Mile in The Village at Penn State? I never said anything about donors. Joe was in BUSINESS deals with Second Mile board members. That's a lot deeper connection than a damn donation. Hell, Joe did ads for the project. THAT'S A FACT. He went on vacation in the Bahamas with Second Mile board members. THAT'S A FACT. His involvement was PERSONAL and had nothing to do with the Penn State BOT. Why are you trying to divert attention from Joe's involvement? It's Joe's involvement that people care about, not some flunky shrink at a rural PA charity.

      At least explain what Joe was doing on the beach with members of the board of the charity YOU blame for the scandal.

    5. You'll have to do better than that. Joe's involvement with the Villages at Penn State was public knowledge. So, please cite some more of these dealings between Joe and Second Mile.

      Why don't you tell me about the deals between PSU and Poole. Who approves those deals? Not Joe Paterno.

    6. Unknown,
      I appreciate your spunk, but your arguments are pretty lame. You really don't have any idea about what's going on between Second Mile and the BOT.

      I'll give you a little help. Go to Poole's company's website and look at his construction contracts. Also, go to the PSU office of Physical Plant and check out the projects.

      I guarantee you that Joe Paterno and Tim Curley didn't approve those contracts.

    7. I agree with you that many, MANY, other members of the Penn State/Second Mile community than Joe, Tim, Gary and Graham were probably involved in the cover-up. You have done yeoman work in ferreting out possible suspects on the Second Mile side of the scandal. When one combines your Second Mile work with Judge Freeh's Penn State work, one realizes that the unfortunate residents of State College were confronted with pervasive corruption in the bedrock institutions of their community. The good news is that the corruption seems limited to Penn State and Second Mile.

    8. Please provide some evidence of a cover up from Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

      I've yet to see any.

    9. And calling what Freeh did an "investigation" (or even calling it "work") is an insult to investigators and people who work.

    10. Unknown I'm not following why you think The Villages at Penn State project and the fact that Paterno invested in the project makes him somehow culpable in the Sandusky tragedy. And Ray has made a reasonable request. Do you have evidence that there was some kind of cover up on the parts of those indicted (of course, Paterno was not indicted)? Yes, I know he's dead, but don't you think Linda Kelly and Corbett would have relished the opportunity to slap Paterno with an indictment if they could have? The charges against Spanier appear to be based on findings in the Freeh report. The Freeh report has now gone under the microscope and its fatal flaws will become clear in the coming future, whether or not these cases even go to trial. You'll have to come up with something better than some business deals to make your case. The business connections between people at PSU, TSM and in the government are too numerous to mention and not all of them are related to some kind of criminal activity.

  15. Ray, if Schultz or Courtney did make a report, then I would agree that none of the PSU people should be charged. But I haven't seen evidence of that, or who they provided with that report, so I can't yet speculate about it yet until I see some type of evidence of a report. I understand you have access to more sources of evidence than me, so I'm not disagreeing with your point about Raykowitz. I was just saying if you charge people at PSU (whether right or wrong), you have to charge Raykowitz as well.

    With regard to the tipster, I am aware that DA Miller received the tip. But, do you think it is at all possible the Surma family knew about the shower incident prior to 2009? McQueary was Vic Surma Jr's position coach (WRs) in 2004-05, while Vic Surma Sr. knew Sandusky having lived in Sandusky's basement for a semester when Vic Sr. played at PSU around 1968-70. Very possible Surma Jr. bragged or mentioned to McQueary that his dad played at PSU and also knew Sandusky. And McQueary, at the mention of Sandusky, could have made disparaging comments about Sandusky and possibly have even told Vic Jr. about the 2001 incident. Knowledge of the 2001 incident (from McQueary's perspective) would certainly give Vic Sr. the ammunition to threaten to "expose" Paterno while on the PSU football message boards in 2007.

    1. Ray has mentioned in earlier posts that if no action is taken on a report, the report is expunged after 120 days. If Schultz and Courtney made the report but the agency to whom they reported, took no action, there is no longer any record of the report. Perhaps Schultz or Courtney have some record in their personal files of the report. Guess we'll have to wait for the trials on that one.

  16. I think the Surma family knew in 2009. You'll see why shortly.

    As for evidence of Schultz and Courtney contacting CYS....we have Schultz's testimony and an e-mail from Courtney stating he recalled them being contacted. That is evidence enough. The Commonwealth must prove that didn't happen and that's a very tall order, based on the track record of CYS and DPW in 1998.

  17. Let's not forget that Mike McQueary's dad and Dr Dranov are both mandatory reporters too. If you take into account that no one reported this incident in 2001, it indicates that Mike McQueary's story might have changed; just a little, in the 10 years before going to the Grand Jury.