AOL Sports: Boy in Shower at Penn State Says Nothing Happened
- Thread starter FourDGlory
- Start date
Shit's about to get interesting. If the press sees an angle to get clicks.
A man who says he was the unidentified boy seen in 2001 in a shower with convicted sexual predator Jerry Sandusky is expected to tell a hearing on Friday that the former Penn State assistant football coach was a father figure who never molested him.
The title of the thread is a bit misleading, unless it's already happened.
The title of the thread is a bit misleading, unless it's already happened.
That kind of information is not released to the press in advance unless the lawyers are certain of the testimony. But yes, the headline implies it's already done.
There was an entire thread devoted to it yesterday.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/allan-myers-expected-testimony-tomorrow.153487/
That's why I asked if it had happened at today's hearing already.
So where are the satellite news trucks? Where is the ticker under ESPN programming and non-stop "Breaking News" interruptions on the network and cable news channels? Where are all the internet heroes from other schools here to tell us what a ridiculous miscarriage of public trust this has been? Where is Sally Jenkins????
Man, the Paterno family can literally name their number. Like, we are going to start at $2B and work our way from there....
First of all, I'm NOT saying that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. He was fairly tried by a jury of his peers and was found guilty. I'm not interested in hashing and rehashing the details of the case. That being said, would this be the biggest case of false conviction in the history of mankind? I would think that my head would litterally explode if I was falsely convicted of jaw walking, let alone something this horrible. I just can't wait for the day when we don't have any more events pop up to stir up media hit pieces and crack pot fans. If there is any silver lining, its that child sexual abuse is a lot more visible now than it was before Sandusky.
So who are you gonna believe...the child supposedly molested or Big Red?
It is absurd for us to expect people to tell the truth in this day and age. Sad, but true.
No he didn't - that is an absolute fabrication given the term used is "SAW" which would make MM a "Eyewitness" and his testimony "Direct Evidence", rather than "Circumstantial Evidence". Not only did MM NEVER testify to such a thing, but he testified under oath in a PA Court multiple times THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE - i.e., that he DID NOT SEE or EYEWITNESS such a thing and "He never told anyone he had"!!!
They should round up McQuaide and put him on the stand immediately after this guy says he wasn't molested and asked red if he'd like to come up with another version of his events.
It was made obvious by MM fathers testimony that there was nothing seen in the shower.
Mike McQueary told his father he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy moments after the incident.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Mike McQueary told his father he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy moments after the incident.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
The OAG probably would be happy about this. It would give them cover to get rid of the CSS stuff once and for all.
The university, of course, would not.
The university, of course, would not.
Oh I am well aware of that!!!! my "tisk tisk" was for that reporting.
MM is still safe from clawback. The university did treat him differently than the other guys. Turns out they may have done that with bad information, of course.
Still, let's wait and see what comes out. We've been pissed on before.
Still, let's wait and see what comes out. We've been pissed on before.
I think it depends what the Settlement Agreement says, but I doubt it. I seriously doubt that AM signed a document committing one way or the other what he would say about the specific incident in question (i.e., night of 2/09/2001). The only way they can take the money back is if he violates the Agreement which is probably silent on this topic (i.e., what he says about the 2/09/2001 incident).
I find it suspiciously coincidental that the Clery Act fine was released and forced a day before this possible statement from the one person who could change the tone of this fiasco. Hmmmmmmmmm
If im not mistaken Lindsay said in that video that some of the "victims'' PSU paid didn't even have to sign anything
Well, if he says that, then game over for Joe, whether it is true or not. Does he get cross-examined?
Sure. If you consider being found guilty without evidence fair. Apparently, Ranger Dan thinks so.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
LOL...I guess the media's incompetence can work for or against you!
"Fairly tried" Even you can't believe that bullshit. I'm NOT saying Soapy is innocent. I am saying his trial was not fair.
If this actually happens it will be interesting to hear the media spin. My suspicion is that they'll pooh, pooh AM's testimony even though it was under oath. It will be the exact opposite of the approach they took when they accepted as gospel the 70's allegations because they were depositions. And this even though AM has potentially something to lose by testifying in this manner.
I preface all of this with the word "IF" ... As in "IF" all of this is accurate & correct ....
So, "IF" this guys statement is that Jerry was a father like figure to him, and nothing ever happened between him & Jerry, and specifically that infamous night in question. There are two separate forces at play:
1. Media perception. Maybe more important to most PSU fans is the media perception. Or more importantly the correction of media perception. --- Sadly this will NOT happen. Like we have seen the last 6 months with the Presidential campaign, the media will only report what they want to report. The media is only interested in THEIR narrative. If the truth is told, and the true story is something different than the pre-determined media narrative.... then we will simply hear silence. Those wishing for Sally Jenkins, and Stephen A Smith, and all the other talking boobs on ESPN to admit their rush to judgement...... Well, you probably should also put a $1 under your pillow tonite and also wait for the Tooth Fairy, because that ain't happening either.
2. Legally. This I have no idea about. If this guy admits under oath that nothing happened... Can Jerry get a re-trial? What happens with CSS? How can CSS be guilty of NOT reporting a crime... if NO crime was committed? CSS are being tried for crimes that tie back to that 2001 shower incident. IF the alleged victim says no crime was committed... then how can CSS be on trial from crimes. ? How does this effect the Paterno suit? Paterno was tried in the court of public opinion largely because of a false narrative set in motion from false accusations from the 2001 shower incident... How does this effect the Paterno suit? Can they sue the State? Can they sue media outlets who falsely reported? Can they sue the OAG?
So, "IF" this guys statement is that Jerry was a father like figure to him, and nothing ever happened between him & Jerry, and specifically that infamous night in question. There are two separate forces at play:
1. Media perception. Maybe more important to most PSU fans is the media perception. Or more importantly the correction of media perception. --- Sadly this will NOT happen. Like we have seen the last 6 months with the Presidential campaign, the media will only report what they want to report. The media is only interested in THEIR narrative. If the truth is told, and the true story is something different than the pre-determined media narrative.... then we will simply hear silence. Those wishing for Sally Jenkins, and Stephen A Smith, and all the other talking boobs on ESPN to admit their rush to judgement...... Well, you probably should also put a $1 under your pillow tonite and also wait for the Tooth Fairy, because that ain't happening either.
2. Legally. This I have no idea about. If this guy admits under oath that nothing happened... Can Jerry get a re-trial? What happens with CSS? How can CSS be guilty of NOT reporting a crime... if NO crime was committed? CSS are being tried for crimes that tie back to that 2001 shower incident. IF the alleged victim says no crime was committed... then how can CSS be on trial from crimes. ? How does this effect the Paterno suit? Paterno was tried in the court of public opinion largely because of a false narrative set in motion from false accusations from the 2001 shower incident... How does this effect the Paterno suit? Can they sue the State? Can they sue media outlets who falsely reported? Can they sue the OAG?
He's trying already regardless. I'm not sure someone who didn't testify at his original trial makes an impact over the victims that actually did testify. Maybe it does, but I seriously doubt it. I tend to not really believe much said on this site anymore as a lot of it is wishful thinking IMO.
I don't know what goes on at the Kiber house, but I don't think that's how that works...
Similar threads
