Eliminating threads
- Thread starter roswelllion
- Start date
I'm allowing for the passage of time. If a guy of Jerry's bulk committed rape, it could NOT be hidden. There would be medical reports at a minimum.
Bill, this is where you lose respect on the letters you write.
Not that they do a damn bit of good anyway.......but any sane person cannot support someone who thinks the things you've posted in this thread.
If you think there should be DNA evidence of crap like that and hang onto that fact to say Jerry is or may be innocent because of it, you are a delusional fool.
Not that they do a damn bit of good anyway.......but any sane person cannot support someone who thinks the things you've posted in this thread.
If you think there should be DNA evidence of crap like that and hang onto that fact to say Jerry is or may be innocent because of it, you are a delusional fool.
I challenge your assertion that we would be in the same position if the GJP had said MM believed JS was sodomizing the boy as opposed to saying MM witnessed JS sodomizing the boy. To me, there is a world of difference. Especially in light of the conflicting testimony by MM.
Thank your lucky stars that you are not an attorney. If you made that argument in court every case you had thereafter that would be viewed with skeptical eyes, to put it kindly. Truly amazing.
You are missing the point. You can't look at Mike's testimony post Nov 2011, when scrutinizing what was in the GJP. What was in the GJP, was based on his statements and GJ testimony before Nov 2011. And I strongly disagree, that suggested rewording puts this in the exact same position.
Lundy I agree with you that the GJP was based on MM's 2010 statement to OAG and GJ testimony that he was "certain" sodomy was occurring however one has to expect that the OAG questioned MM in 2010+ about whether he "thought" a sex act was occurring or if he saw/witnessed a sex act occurring (much like all of the people MM spoke to in 2001, the first thing they would ask MM is what did you see?... Not what did you THINK was happening, but what did you actually see).
If the OAG didn't drill down into this, they are incompetent as it's quite important. If they did, then they would know MM didn't actually see anything but made some ASSUMPTIONS based on the sounds and positioning he saw which means the OAG knowingly put a false assertion into the GJP, either way it doesn't look very good for the OAG/GJP. As others have said GJP's don't have to be factual but the reason this one was so damaging was that it was "leaked" to the public thus causing a firestorm and prejudicing the jury against not only JS but also C/S/S.
There's also the email that MM sent the OAG shortly after the GJP was "leaked" showing his anger over how the OAG portrayed his story about 2001. If the GJP was accurate why was MM so upset??
When looking at MM/JM's testimony post 11/11 (which I pointed out in my above post) It clearly shows MM has very little credibility b/c his story completely changed from being certain in his OAG interviews/GJ testimony to not 100% certain and "I think" in his 12/16/11 C/S prelim. JM's testimony reflecting some grey area ("at least a very inappropriate action"....) also shows MM wasn't certain of anything in 2001 except that the shower was wrong/over the line/inappropriate/made him uncomfortable.
Last edited:
Exactly which argument are you referring to? Please do enlighten me as to how the argument would fail in court. This should be good.....
It's really not that complicated. If MM was certain in 2001 that JS was sodomizing a kid he wouldn't have considered calling the police that night then decide against it. He would have called the police that very night and he wouldn't need another adult to tell him that's what he needed to do. He certainly wouldn't have slept on it then tell a football coach the next AM, then be ok with waiting another 10 days to speak to some PSU admins about it then express NO dissatisfaction with the admins when they followed up with MM all while JS was still walking the streets and not even arrested. MM would have at LEAST made a written statement to UPPD (or asked the PSU admins why no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement/express dissatisfaction to them) or placed an anonymous call to ChildLine....but he never did. What exactly did MM expect UPPD to do if he never even so much as gave them a written statement/filed a report??
If MM was certain in 2001 that JS was sodomizing a kid and reported it as such, his dad, JM, wouldn't testify on 12/16/11 that he was told about something that was "at least a very inappropriate action" since certain child rape/severe sexual act is very clearly a criminal action far beyond something that's considered inappropriate or has any "at beast/at worst" grey area.
What I just laid out above is the reason MM and JM are going to get destroyed on cross examination if the CSS trials ever do happen. The state was so worried about JM being questioned about his 12/16/11 prelim testimony that they told JM to claim he didn't remember giving that testimony even though it was only 6 MONTHS prior. Either that or JM has a severe case of demensia......which I don't believe for a second.
This is the 2nd time you have referred to Linda Kelly and you "flushing" of her, can you expand on what you are claiming ?
So sorry, but Sandusky's attorney finally got the transcript of McQueary's GJ testimony, which proves that whoever wrote the presentment flat-out lied. http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html
In addition, of course, had McQueary told the GJ and the Curley/Schultz hearing contradictory stories, he would simply not be credible anyway.
This has been reported, by the way, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel via certified mail, and delivered in May.
William A. Levinson
To: Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
601 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 5800
P.O. Box 62675
Harrisburg, PA 17106-2675
cert. mail 7013 2250 0000 7528 9041
16 May 2015
Subject: False and inflammatory statement in Grand Jury presentment (Jerry Sandusky/ Tim Curley/ Gary Schultz case)
I previously informed the Disciplinary Board of this issue in February 2012 on the basis of Mike McQueary's testimony in the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing,[1] but recall being told that no action could be taken without the transcript from McQueary's actual Grand Jury testimony. Enough of this testimony has now become available[2] to prove that whoever was responsible for the original presentment[3] embellished Mike McQueary's testimony from a suspicion ("he inferred…" or "he suspected…") to an eyewitness account of a sexual assault on a minor. I am accordingly bringing this material to the Board's attention.
I refer to pages 6-7 of the Grand Jury presentment and the statement "He [Mike McQueary] saw a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." As proven below by Attorney Lindsay, "the initial grand jury presentment, drafted by the prosecution, contained factually false information." The presentment does not include the name(s) of the prosecutor(s) responsible, but I assume this information could be obtained by the Disciplinary Board if it determines that the Rules of Professional Conduct were violated. Here are the relevant screen shots from Attorney Lindsay's document (pages 20 and 21):
[Screen shots, including the one above, were included]
I am not qualified to give legal advice, but the following Rules of Professional Conduct look applicable to this situation.[4]
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity.
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.
(e) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
In addition, with regard to Rule 3.6, Attorney Lindsay alleges (page 19),
[Screenshot with regard to posting the sealed presentment on a Web site "by mistake"]
The Appendix did not come with the document I downloaded, but I assume that Attorney Lindsay could provide the necessary proof that this took place.
I do not have any standing in this matter other than as a Penn State alumnus, but this presentment played a major role in not only the harm that Attorney Lindsay alleges regarding Jerry Sandusky, but also to the reputations of the Pennsylvania State University, former President Graham Spanier, former Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and Mike McQueary. The latter has been widely depicted as a coward for not intervening in what the presentment said he KNEW to be a sexual assault on a minor.[5] McQueary has also received death threats because of the false and inflammatory statement in the presentment.[6] While I am not qualified to give legal advice, it comes across as contrary to public policy to expose a prosecution witness to ridicule, ostracism, and violent threats by falsifying his testimony in a public and official document.
It is also to be recalled that this element of the presentment precipitated the media firestorm against Penn State, the Board of Trustees' panic and rush to judgment on November 9 2011, and the NCAA's now-discredited action against Penn State.
I accordingly bring the discrepancy between the two indicated documents (Grand Jury presentment, transcript of McQueary's actual testimony) to the Board's official attention, and ask that the Board determine whether the presentment is consistent with the Commonwealth's Rules of Professional Conduct.
[1] Formerly at http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf but no longer available there.
[2] Jerry Sandusky's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, as filed on May 6 by Attorney Alexander Lindsayhttp://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/Sandusky%20Amended%20Petition%20for%20Post%20Conviction%20Relief.pdf pages 20 and 21
[3] http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf pages 6 and 7
[4] http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s81.4.html
[5] http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/128591/only_a_coward_sees_a for but one example.
[6] http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand "Three days after the presentment was released, McQueary held a private meeting with his position group, a crew of more than a dozen receivers and tight ends. According to two players who were there and others familiar with the 40-minute session, McQueary looked pale and his hands shook. He had received death threats and barely slept. Friends were shooting sideways glances at him, as if he hadn't done enough, or perhaps too much. PSU administrators decided that, for his safety, McQueary wouldn't be allowed to coach that Saturday's home game against Nebraska." (emphasis is mine)
Last edited:
She is no longer Attorney General, having been fired not only by the state's Democrats but also Republicans such as myself in 2012.
Much the same way we flushed Riley, Suhey, Deviney, and Myers in the alumni Trustee elections, and encouraged scum like Peetz and Frazier to self-deport.
Last edited:
Agree. Physical evidence from a decade ago? Really? Medical reports from crimes that were not reported which is typical in molestation cases. No video evidence either as the kids were too dumb not to video it for Jerry.
It's one thing to cry foul about a fair trial, but you could at least try and think a little bit. Maybe some see the adults testify and don't realize they were children when this occurred. It's as if very typical behaviors that occur with molestation cases don't count for Jerry. People act like these crimes were reported at the time and rape kits were used. How can any PSU fan that read anything Clemente wrote say this BS with a straight face.
So I take it you are claiming that you essentially "voted against her" in that election, thus ensuring that she would not win and would be replaced? Is that you position?
That is correct. I (and many others) voted against her even though she is a Republican, and I also voted against One Term Tommy despite some disagreements with Wolf's ideas. The Republican-controlled Senate will not allow him to raise taxes, though, so this was a price I was willing to pay to get that piece of garbage out of Harrisburg.
"That is correct. I (and many others) voted against her even though she is a Republican"
Did she get ANY votes in that election?
It gets even worse: http://news.yahoo.com/jerry-sandusk...him-stand-120403600--abc-news-topstories.html
"Amendola asked two Pennsylvania state troopers whether the potential victims they interviewed at the beginning of the investigation ever said that nothing happened between them and Sandusky, and whether they later changed their stories to say that sexual abuse had occurred. Both investigators agreed that the men had changed their stories during the course of several interviews to provide detailed accounts of being molested or raped."
"Amendola asked two Pennsylvania state troopers whether the potential victims they interviewed at the beginning of the investigation ever said that nothing happened between them and Sandusky, and whether they later changed their stories to say that sexual abuse had occurred. Both investigators agreed that the men had changed their stories during the course of several interviews to provide detailed accounts of being molested or raped."
Excuse me but you were telling me how you made sure that Kelly lost the 2012 election, can we continue that conversation?
My mistake; we voted down Corbett's man David Freed. I found this when I went to look for the vote totals.
http://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_attorney_general_election,_2012
That election was only 3 years ago and you already forgot how you ousted Corbett's hand picked successor? Such an important and pivotal moment in PA, I'm somewhat surprised you forgot some of the details. Oh well
So what would the reaction have been to the GJP had it not been leaked and came out a few days later? Are you suggesting no firestorm?
Ok, so what do you suggest the OAG should have said in the GJP about the 2001 incident in their charging document given the GJ testimony and statements to investigators by Mike?So sorry, but Sandusky's attorney finally got the transcript of McQueary's GJ testimony, which proves that whoever wrote the presentment flat-out lied. http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html
In addition, of course, had McQueary told the GJ and the Curley/Schultz hearing contradictory stories, he would simply not be credible anyway.
This has been reported, by the way, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel via certified mail, and delivered in May.
William A. Levinson
To: Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
601 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 5800
P.O. Box 62675
Harrisburg, PA 17106-2675
cert. mail 7013 2250 0000 7528 9041
16 May 2015
Subject: False and inflammatory statement in Grand Jury presentment (Jerry Sandusky/ Tim Curley/ Gary Schultz case)
I previously informed the Disciplinary Board of this issue in February 2012 on the basis of Mike McQueary's testimony in the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing,[1] but recall being told that no action could be taken without the transcript from McQueary's actual Grand Jury testimony. Enough of this testimony has now become available[2] to prove that whoever was responsible for the original presentment[3] embellished Mike McQueary's testimony from a suspicion ("he inferred…" or "he suspected…") to an eyewitness account of a sexual assault on a minor. I am accordingly bringing this material to the Board's attention.
I refer to pages 6-7 of the Grand Jury presentment and the statement "He [Mike McQueary] saw a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." As proven below by Attorney Lindsay, "the initial grand jury presentment, drafted by the prosecution, contained factually false information." The presentment does not include the name(s) of the prosecutor(s) responsible, but I assume this information could be obtained by the Disciplinary Board if it determines that the Rules of Professional Conduct were violated. Here are the relevant screen shots from Attorney Lindsay's document (pages 20 and 21):
[Screen shots, including the one above, were included]
I am not qualified to give legal advice, but the following Rules of Professional Conduct look applicable to this situation.[4]
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity.
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.
(e) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
In addition, with regard to Rule 3.6, Attorney Lindsay alleges (page 19),
[Screenshot with regard to posting the sealed presentment on a Web site "by mistake"]
The Appendix did not come with the document I downloaded, but I assume that Attorney Lindsay could provide the necessary proof that this took place.
I do not have any standing in this matter other than as a Penn State alumnus, but this presentment played a major role in not only the harm that Attorney Lindsay alleges regarding Jerry Sandusky, but also to the reputations of the Pennsylvania State University, former President Graham Spanier, former Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and Mike McQueary. The latter has been widely depicted as a coward for not intervening in what the presentment said he KNEW to be a sexual assault on a minor.[5] McQueary has also received death threats because of the false and inflammatory statement in the presentment.[6] While I am not qualified to give legal advice, it comes across as contrary to public policy to expose a prosecution witness to ridicule, ostracism, and violent threats by falsifying his testimony in a public and official document.
It is also to be recalled that this element of the presentment precipitated the media firestorm against Penn State, the Board of Trustees' panic and rush to judgment on November 9 2011, and the NCAA's now-discredited action against Penn State.
I accordingly bring the discrepancy between the two indicated documents (Grand Jury presentment, transcript of McQueary's actual testimony) to the Board's official attention, and ask that the Board determine whether the presentment is consistent with the Commonwealth's Rules of Professional Conduct.
[1] Formerly at http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf but no longer available there.
[2] Jerry Sandusky's Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, as filed on May 6 by Attorney Alexander Lindsayhttp://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/Sandusky%20Amended%20Petition%20for%20Post%20Conviction%20Relief.pdf pages 20 and 21
[3] http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf pages 6 and 7
[4] http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s81.4.html
[5] http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/128591/only_a_coward_sees_a for but one example.
[6] http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand "Three days after the presentment was released, McQueary held a private meeting with his position group, a crew of more than a dozen receivers and tight ends. According to two players who were there and others familiar with the 40-minute session, McQueary looked pale and his hands shook. He had received death threats and barely slept. Friends were shooting sideways glances at him, as if he hadn't done enough, or perhaps too much. PSU administrators decided that, for his safety, McQueary wouldn't be allowed to coach that Saturday's home game against Nebraska." (emphasis is mine)
IMO the GJP caused a firestorm for two reasons. 1 it was illegally leaked and 2 it contained false/inaccurate/inflammatory information (designed specifically to direct attention toward PSU and away from TSM/CYS/DPW/OAG failure) about what MM "saw" that night in 2002 (sic).
There still would have been a firestorm if one or both of the above didn't happen, just not as big IMO, especially #2. If the GJP said that MM heard some noises then through a few seconds glimpse into a shower mirror saw JS standing with his arms around a boy (aka exact repeat of 1998 which the state's own CYS/DPW had ZERO issues with) but didn't really know what they were doing because he couldn't see anyone's privates or hands but knew it was inappropriate/over the line/wrong/made him feel uncomfortable and that someone at PSU should be informed about it, things would have been much different.
It wouldn't have been reported throughout the world as a FACT that a PSU GA eye witnessed the raping of a child and told Joe/PSU admins about it who then did nothing (aka the current false narrative). The current false narrative most likely never would have come about and been cemented.
However since we had scumbags in the OAG/PSU BOT like Corbett, Fina, Frazier, Peetz, Erickson, Surma, et. al the current false narrative was confirmed, propagated, and cemented with a nice assist from louie freeh.
You can rarely go wrong by telling the truth.
I suggest that the GJP that the OAG should have written stated the facts as the OAG knew them instead of embellishing them. They should have said that MM witnessed JS showering with a young man and heard noises that he thought were possibly sexual.
I also think that the OAG should not have charged Curley and Schultz with criminal offenses as it now seems that the OAG had no intention of actually prosecuting those cases. By charging 2 of Sandusky's primary defense witnesses, the OAG rendered them unavailable for trial. Sandusky went to trial 7 months after he was charged despite despite reasonable defense requests for continuances to prepare for the trial. The OAG has not vigorously opposed the numerous continuances and interlocutory appeals that have left the Curley and Schultz still untried 45 months after they were charged. I doubt they will ever go to trial because if they do it will expose the OAG shenanigans including the false GJP.
SteveMasters posted:
"I suggest that the GJP that the OAG should have written stated the facts as the OAG knew them instead of embellishing them. They should have said that MM witnessed JS showering with a young man and heard noises that he thought were possibly sexual."
Why should they have omitted McQueary's testimony that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration?
"I suggest that the GJP that the OAG should have written stated the facts as the OAG knew them instead of embellishing them. They should have said that MM witnessed JS showering with a young man and heard noises that he thought were possibly sexual."
Why should they have omitted McQueary's testimony that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration?
I would be fine with whatever the OAG wrote in the GJP as long as it was the truth as the OAG knew it. Unfortunately, the GJP that the OAG wrote did not meet that criteria.
B_Levinson posted:
"So sorry, but Sandusky's attorney finally got the transcript of McQueary's GJ testimony, which proves that whoever wrote the presentment flat-out lied."
Are you saying that McQueary's testimony that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration does not support the GJP's allegation that the boy was being subjected to anal intercourse?
Where is the flat-out lie?
"So sorry, but Sandusky's attorney finally got the transcript of McQueary's GJ testimony, which proves that whoever wrote the presentment flat-out lied."
Are you saying that McQueary's testimony that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration does not support the GJP's allegation that the boy was being subjected to anal intercourse?
Where is the flat-out lie?
On pages 6-7 of the GJP - "He [Mike McQueary] saw a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
Well, you keep forgetting that Mike told the investigators and GJ that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy. He was an eyewitness to crimes, which is incredibly rare. You think in their charging document, they are going to say MM saw JS in the shower, heard a few things, and wasn't sure what he saw? Maybe if those were the exact words from Mike. But Mike said he believed that JS was sodomizing the kid.
Like I said before, if you want to be critical of Mike's testimony, what he saw or didn't see, what he heard or didnt hear, what he told or who he told, then I think that is fair.
Yes, I think in their charging document that the OAG should have accurately stated what MM witnessed and not have embellished it. Whether you realize it or not, this embellishment was extremely prejudicial.
ok, then they should have stated Mike heard some sounds, saw JS pressed up against the boy, and believed JS was sodomizing the boy
That would have been a lot better. Unlike the actual GJP, I don't believe that that would have been viewed as prosecutorial misconduct.
I didnt forget that at all. I think the OAG convinced MM to alter his story (play revisionist history) in his 2010 written statement from I'm not sure what JS and the kid were doing but was uncomfortable about it .... to I'm certain sodomy was occurring and reported it as such. How they got him to do it remains to be seen. I say this because the testimony from 12/16/11 prelim and everyone's actions in 2001 dont support the "I'm certain sodomy was occurring" version. MM's revisionist history is why C/S/S were charged with crimes b/c based on MM's 2010 statement CSS were told of a certain crime when in reality they were told about an inappropriate shower that made a GA uncomfortable.
Its a fact that MM didn't eyewitness anything other than an inappropriate late night shower. MM couldnt even see JS hands so he couldn't say if molestation was happening. Exactly what crimes did MM eye witness? Even in the GJ testimony MM says that he didn't see any insertion but THOUGHT (based on positioning) that sodomy was occurring. Thinking/assuming/speculating that something is happening is WAY different than actually eye witnessing it. The OAG damn wekk knows the difference and still wrote the GJP the way they did.
The only reason there were any convictions re: V2 was bc the OAG was able to establish the showering behavior as a grooming pattern via other victim testimony.
"pretty sure, relatively sure," is not "being subjected."
The difference in a deadly force case, by the way, is the difference between going to prison for manslaughter and not being charged at all. Police instructor Massad Ayoob calls it the difference between bare fear and reasonable fear. E.g. if a teenager in a hoodie looks at you the wrong way, and makes a move that might possibly be threatening, you can't pull a gun on him much less shoot him unless you want to end up in very deep trouble. (You can of course put distance between you and him to avoid unpleasant surprises.) If, on the other hand, he draws a weapon and you are in its range, you're not "pretty sure" or "relatively sure" your life is in danger, you are in what the law calls reasonable fear for your physical safety.
Note also that McQueary said he did not see a crime reportable to police. He said he would have called the police for burglary or car theft, but not for whatever it was he thought Sandusky was doing with the boy.
