so the OAG knew who the victim was, but didn't compel him to testify
but they supposedly had dozens of others waiting in the wings
so again . . . why did they need big red on the stand? imagine the trial without V2.
AM testimony on Nov. 4
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
so the OAG knew who the victim was, but didn't compel him to testify
but they supposedly had dozens of others waiting in the wings
so again . . . why did they need big red on the stand? imagine the trial without V2.
Several of the "incidents" ( i.e. All except for the 2 "Penn State" incidents) had the testimony of actual - - - you know - - - "victims"
That's kind of "eye witness-y"........isn't it?
Several of the "incidents" ( i.e. All except for the 2 "Penn State" incidents) had the testimony of actual - - - you know - - - "victims"
That's kind of "eye witness-y"........isn't it?
I believe v2 is the only accuser with a corroborating witness. IMO, AM + MM = nothing sexual.
more to my point, think of the presser when charges were announced
the PSU 3 were featured as prominently as Sandusky
2 out of 10 victims related to PSU
Victim 2 was known to the OAG
that victim was one of 2 who did not testify
the other "victim" who did not testify ALSO related to Penn State
BOTH victims related to PSU had exculpatory evidence that suggested Sandusky did not molest them
the OAG did not need either victim to convict Sandusky if they truly believed he was a sexual predator
I hear your point - I think
I wasn't very clear wrt my earlier post - and it was in response to a post further up the line
The point I did a lousy job of making - more or less - was:
That if you (the OAG) want to charge someone w CSA, the most compelling argument a prosecutor can make is to trot 4 (or 6 or 8 or 20) now young men to the stand - have them point at the accused and say "He did X, Y, and Z to me"
Bewilderingly (or maybe not) that was not the folcrum used in this case.......I think we all feel comfortable that we know at least some of the reasons why that was not the case - - - and I also think we all have some lingering questions
A new trial for JS - perhaps more than anything else - might provide a forum to answer some of those questions
They apparently think they did. Otherwise, why did they come after MM so many years later? Why did MM's story change so many times? Why did two state police lie on the witness stand?
Last edited:
Correct. I should have clarified my statement. That was the only situation in which there was a witness to the alleged abuse.
What was shocking to me initially was the Janitor situation. No victim and no Witness yet, IIRC, Sandusky was found guilty of that situation too.
Speaking of Simons, has he been released from detention yet or what?
Speaking of Bernie McCue, here's his history of tweets (before he deleted his account), fwiw.
Speaking of our girl Sara, she's fighting her subpoena trying to get out of testifying in the PCRA proceedings(according to the PCRA transcripts).
The transcripts also indicated Shubin wasn't planning on going in either. Lindsay told Cleland Shubin was going to file a motion to quash the subpoena rather than appear that day as subpoenaed. Cleland offered to send the sheriff to bring in Shubin, but Lindsay spoke up and volunteered to phone Shubin as a professional courtesy. Shubin made his appearance shortly there after.
My understanding is that our girl Sara will not testify. It would have been nice if she did, but unfortunately it doesn't seem like it is going to happen.
Judge Cleland seems like he gets it, but I'm not sure he is ready to award Sandusky a new trial. OTOH, what Sandusky's defense has been able to get in the record may be enough to win an appeal. It should be very interesting to see how it all works out.
I don't know why it took so long, but the transcript from AM's testimony at the Nov. 4, 2016 evidentiary hearing has finally been posted on the Centre County web pages.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY TRANSCRIPT FROM PCRA HEARING ON 11 4 16.pdf
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY TRANSCRIPT FROM PCRA HEARING ON 11 4 16.pdf
AM sounds a lot like Mike M on the witness stand . . .
So I fully expect all of our resident trolls that showed up to tear apart C/C/S for testifying "I don't know" a lot , will soon be here to do the same to AM? He's young, his memory should be much better than C/S/S.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.
I farted, did the death burp and died.
Signed Bernie McFart.
Signed Bernie McFart.
C/S/S should have stuck with, "well if that's what I said when I said it, then that was what I would have said at that time, when it was said by me. if I said it"
So will Ray figure out who V2 is now that V2 has said he's V2? Or is that not enough?
Will figuring it out make Ray Money? Cause if it does, he will figure it out.
If it doesn't help sell T-shirts & a future book, it will be left a mystery.
Quick Covey, defend the non sensical narrative!!
Not sure how anyone could read that and come to the conclusion that Myers was ever abused by Sandusky. Clear as can be that this was a big money grab on Myers' part.
There must be some strange serum in the chemical makeup of large bills that causes men who were victims of child sexual abuse to develop the courage to go public with their abuse. Or at least that's what Roxine of Treeclimbers tells me.
was I seeing things or did SHE pop on here during a football weekend to rub our noses in Spanier's appeal denial?? that said, Meyers seemed very evasive, and the state's attorney objected every turn, when pressed about the time line of what he said before Shubin "represented" him in this matter, and what he said afterwards
Anyone else notice that Myers was asked by crooked state pension pig: "Were you ever abused?", not "Were you ever abused by JS?"
Go figure.
Go figure.
Last edited:
The thing that I always found interesting is the observation by francofan that AM has a beard, glasses, looked straight ahead, and drank a lot of water might be very revealing. Maybe he's dealing with some guilt issues. The drinking water could be associated with nerves, but when you factor the change in appearance, that raises some questions.
Maybe he was and maybe not. But, no way based on this that any charges related to V2 on that particular night should have been upheld. What a case of double standard. I'm more convinced than ever that MM was lying through his teeth about what he witnessed.
AM didn't remember where he was during the trial. Just somewhere in Central PA. Should have been asked if he was at a cabin, but it would have immediately shouted down by the state of course.
Oooh! Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Oooooh! Ooh!
Is the answer that they were less interested in getting Sandusky convicted than they were in pinning blame on the deep pockets of Penn State?
Interesting blog post by Ralph Cipriano on Allan Myers's testimony. Myers testified 34 times that he couldn't remember. The article includes quotes by John Ziegler and John Snedden,
John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally released.
"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about the Penn State scandal.
"And it's obvious to anyone who understand the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. "He [Myers] remembers everything up until he flips on Jerry and then he can't remember anything."
Myers' testimony, Ziegler said, was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had who had flipped for $3 million and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore."
When Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler recalled, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."
John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.
"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."
"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"
"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" in the Sandusky case," Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."
And where the hell did they hide Myers during the Sandusky trial?
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html
John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally released.
"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about the Penn State scandal.
"And it's obvious to anyone who understand the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. "He [Myers] remembers everything up until he flips on Jerry and then he can't remember anything."
Myers' testimony, Ziegler said, was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had who had flipped for $3 million and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore."
When Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler recalled, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."
John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.
"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."
"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"
"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" in the Sandusky case," Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."
And where the hell did they hide Myers during the Sandusky trial?
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html
I think you initiated the thread as I was making my posting. When I read the article, I thought the article related to the AM's testimony thread, but it is also worthy of its own thread.
Per article, AM has a piss poor memory:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html?m=1
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html?m=1
Interesting exchange between John Snedden and Ray Blehar on twitter
Similar threads
