FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)

[sluggo72]

I apologize for the really basic question, but I have not had time to follow the PCRA hearing in detail. Is the implication that allan meyers is not Victim 2 and that someone else is or that there is no Victim 2?

the way I've read it, there is a Vic 2, but it is not AM. The reason it is not AM is 1) he got the date wrong (but really, other than JS, who didn't? 2) he drew a picture of the locker room/shower area poorly from memory of something 10 yrs prior. For the record Ray doesn't think he is vic 2 either.
Why don't they just ask JS?? He knows, correct?

 

[LundyPSU]

the way I've read it, there is a Vic 2, but it is not AM. The reason it is not AM is 1) he got the date wrong (but really, other than JS, who didn't? 2) he drew a picture of the locker room/shower area poorly from memory of something 10 yrs prior. For the record Ray doesn't think he is vic 2 either.
Why don't they just ask JS?? He knows, correct?

What about Heim and JR??? I am sure they have been asked, right?

 

[sluggo72]

What about Heim and JR??? I am sure they have been asked, right?

good question, I forgot about them.

 

[BobPSU92]

let me see if I can simplify it for you . . . who the f**k knows?

OAG did not believe his story, but thought there was a V2, but only God knows who it was

then Myers did an interview with Amendola's investigator saying Sandusky did nothing

then Shubin became his attorney

then apparently he hid out at a hunting cabin for weeks while Sassano was trying to interview him

then he got $3 million from Penn State

Nothing to see here.

 

[simons96]

Nothing to see here.

 

[LundyPSU]

good question, I forgot about them.

Also, didn't JS claim he was at a book signing (or other event)with AM earlier that day in 2001 and arrived back late in State College? I know a number of years have passed, but seems that there a few things there to follow up on.

 

[Diego Badman]

What about Heim and JR??? I am sure they have been asked, right?

You're right. Exactly. If the Second Mile was contacted, as most think they were, then someone can get it right from those who were there in real time. Raykovitz could say whether it is AM or not. After all, wasn't it he or Heim that said this issue was a "non-starter" or something like that?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

let me see if I can simplify it for you . . . who the f**k knows?
OAG did not believe his story, but thought there was a V2, but only God knows who it was
then AM did an interview with Amendola's investigator saying Sandusky did nothing
then Shubin became his attorney
then apparently he hid out at a hunting cabin for weeks while Sassano was trying to interview him
then he got $3 million from Penn State

LOL! That is a truly outstanding clarification (of a clusterfu@#).

 

[jim cummings]

let me see if I can simplify it for you . . . who the f**k knows?

OAG did not believe his story, but thought there was a V2, but only God knows who it was

then AM did an interview with Amendola's investigator saying Sandusky did nothing

then Shubin became his attorney

then apparently he hid out at a hunting cabin for weeks while Sassano was trying to interview him

then he got $3 million from Penn State

 

[WeR0206]

What about Heim and JR??? I am sure they have been asked, right?

Gotta love how PSU/Joe got CRUCIFIED for not knowing who mystery kid V2 was but JR/Heim/Poole at TSM (you know, the folks who were legally responsible for JS and the kids he was hanging around with and were told about the 2001 incident) rode off into the sunset....smh.

Was JR/Heim/et al. ever put under oath and asked if they found out who JS was with that night after TC was on their doorstep complaining about JS' showering behavior and informing TSM that because of this PSU was revoking JS' ability to bring kids on campus??????????

 

[francofan]

Gotta love how PSU/Joe got CRUCIFIED for not knowing who mystery kid V2 was but JR/Heim/Poole at TSM (you know, the folks who were legally responsible for JS and the kids he was hanging around with and were told about the 2001 incident) rode off into the sunset....smh.

Was JR/Heim/et al. ever put under oath and asked if they found out who JS was with that night after TC was on their doorstep complaining about JS' showering behavior and informing TSM that because of this PSU was revoking JS' ability to bring kids on campus??????????

I don't think the OAG was the least bit interested in asking JR/Heim/Poole if they knew the identity of who JS was with that night. It didn't further their goals and objectives.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You're right. Exactly. If the Second Mile was contacted, as most think they were, then someone can get it right from those who were there in real time. Raykovitz could say whether it is AM or not. After all, wasn't it he or Heim that said this issue was a "non-starter" or something like that?

I'm sure the prosecutors/investigators left no stone unturned in their quest to locate "V2"

This was all about convicting a pedofile and making our world safer
Right?
Right?

Fina?

Billed?

Anyone?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Why wasn't this fleshed out in the testimony yesterday? Either with her and/or Fina. Who put the words "anal intercourse" in GJ presentment? When and why? Was it the fist draft? the second draft? Do paper copies of edited drafts exist? That is very valuable to put in the public record.

Especially so when MM's actual testimony to the SWIGJ he actually testified to, the 30th SWIGJ, STATED THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE (i.e., he did not see or eyewitness a sex act of any kind, let alone "anal intercourse", and he was only speculating on what he thought might have been going on based on what he originally heard walking into the locker-room and then saw glimpsed in the shower - both parties in the shower in close proximity - two glimpses that lasted at longest a "couple seconds each"....).....and the FACT that MM never testified to the 33rd SWIGJ, let alone tell them something that is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of what he ACTUALLY told the SWIGJ he testified to, the 30th SWIGJ!!!

Absurd for the Presentment to claim that the 33rd SWIGJ found Mike McQueary's report of eyewitnessing "anal intercourse" extremely credible because he NEVER testified to the 33rd SWIGJ and the SWIGJ he did testify to, the 30th SWIGJ, he told the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the Presentment claims!!!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

the way I've read it, there is a Vic 2, but it is not AM. The reason it is not AM is 1) he got the date wrong (but really, other than JS, who didn't? 2) he drew a picture of the locker room/shower area poorly from memory of something 10 yrs prior. For the record Ray doesn't think he is vic 2 either.
Why don't they just ask JS?? He knows, correct?

LOL, the prosecution's conclusion is that AM was never in the locker-room based on his drawing......a CONCLUSION which is PROVABLY FALSE as many of AM's TSM Peers can testify that he DID hang out with Sandusky a lot including in that locker-room while participating in TSM's "Friend Fitness Program" which used PSU's Lasch Facilities prior to being banned post the 2001 Incident!!!

 

[Sproul]

I don't think the OAG was the least bit interested in asking JR/Heim/Poole if they knew the identity of who JS was with that night. It didn't further their goals and objectives.

Yep, and Heim giving cars to kids for "prizes" for contests that they didn't enter or know about is strictly on the up and up as well.

 

[UncleLar]

What did Mike testify to at the prelim hearing in Dec 2011?

From the preliminary hearing transcript (p 42)

Q: Okay. Now, we were talking earlier at least when you were answering Mr. Beemer's questions, specifically the night of this incident, how do you know or do you know whether it was 2002?

A: I'm relatively sure it was 2002. I remember it being a Friday night before spring break.

From the same hearing transcript (p 86)

Q: Mr. Mcqueary, the year that this happened, can you locate this event to any other event in your life that tells you if it was 2002 versus 2001 or another year?

A: Not right off the top of my head. I'm sure if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something, but, no, not right now.

So what I read into the testimony is that McQueary wasn't 100% sure that it was 2002, but thought that it was. I'd say he was more concerned about getting the details about the incident right than he was the actual date. People that try to use this as an example of him changing his story are off base. He was clear that he wasn't 100% sure about the date. So what if it later turned out to be 2001? He had always stated that was a possibility. While the date may be important as to whether the incident fell within the statute of limitations, it clearly had little importance to McQueary. When they tried to pin him down regarding the date, he was unable to provide a definitive response. That shows that he just wasn't sure. The fact that it later turned out to be 2001 surely can't be held against him since he always left that open as a possibility.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

From the preliminary hearing transcript (p 42)

Q: Okay. Now, we were talking earlier at least when you were answering Mr. Beemer's questions, specifically the night of this incident, how do you know or do you know whether it was 2002?

A: I'm relatively sure it was 2002. I remember it being a Friday night before spring break.

From the same hearing transcript (p 86)

Q: Mr. Mcqueary, the year that this happened, can you locate this event to any other event in your life that tells you if it was 2002 versus 2001 or another year?

A: Not right off the top of my head. I'm sure if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something, but, no, not right now.

So what I read into the testimony is that McQueary wasn't 100% sure that it was 2002, but thought that it was. I'd say he was more concerned about getting the details about the incident right than he was the actual date. People that try to use this as an example of him changing his story are off base. He was clear that he wasn't 100% sure about the date. So what if it later turned out to be 2001? He had always stated that was a possibility. While the date may be important as to whether the incident fell within the statute of limitations, it clearly had little importance to McQueary. When they tried to pin him down regarding the date, he was unable to provide a definitive response. That shows that he just wasn't sure. The fact that it later turned out to be 2001 surely can't be held against him since he always left that open as a possibility.

Really? Sassano testified that the March date in 2002 was pinned down as Mike McQueary told them he was watching the movie "Rudy" before heading to Lasch (which is what supposedly "motivated" him to go there with his newly bought sneakers to drop them off and then watch film). Sassano said he scoured TV Guides in February and March 2002 to pin down the date that the prosecution used in the Presentment, their Indictments and with the court for months upon months despite the Defense saying from the get go that the event occured in February 2001 which Sandusky said he remembered quite clearly because he had just gotten back from his interview for the open Head Coaching Job at UVa in late January 2001 (i.e., he remembered it happening directly after he returned). So your notion that the prosecution had no way of establishing the correct date is ludicrous as Sandusky named the PRECISE DATE (Friday, February 9, 2001) from the get go! BTW genius, Mike McQueary's and Sassano's bull$hit story about "locating the correct date, Friday 3/8/2002, via the movie Rudy" is complete bull$hit as none of the State College broadcasters were broadcasting "Rudy" 2/9/2001 and it is quite likely that Sassano crafted this story for McQueary to make his claim of Friday, March 8, 2002 (a night that a State College Cable Channel was broadcasting "Rudy") seem more "credible" as he could connect it to watching "Rudy" which motivated him to go to Lasch to watch film, LMFAO! It was another lie and complete BS story that the prosecution conjured out of thin air! What is especially laughable is the prosecution claiming the party that JS named as being present with him on 2/9/2001 in the locker-room that night (and AM also being present with Sandusky earlier in the day on some type of TSM related trip earlier in the day that could be confirmed and that they went to Lasch for a "Friends Fitness Program" workout that evening upon returning) is definitively incorrect, when the prosecution was completely full of $hit regarding the timing of the event and the Defense was precisely correct from the get go! Again, JS says it can be confirmed by TSM that AM was with him all day 2/9/2001.....JS was correct about the precise date as well.....etc...., but the prosecution had ALL OF THEIR FACTS WRONG about even the date of the event and kept their facts wrong for months upon months upon months.....and only changed them after the DEFENSE DEFINITIVELY PROVED THEM WRONG VIA MEMOS, but the prosecution has more "credibility" on these topics, including who was with Sandusky that day, than the Defense has??? Right-o Mr. corrupt prosecutors "bootlicker" and "water-carrier" - LMFAO!

 

[L.T. Young]

Would you like for me to provide a reference where someone could go to learn the identity of the accusers? I will give a clue, it is in the public record. Would you prefer that I refer to Aaron Fisher as v1, to AM as v2, and to Matt Sandusky as another client of Andrew Shubin? All three of these accusers have come out publicly and it seems to me lose their right to remain unidentified

Since you brought it up, I have a couple of questions for you.

1. What is your opinion of AM? Do you think he is v2? Do you think he has the right to avoid testifying in a court of law concerning what he knows in this case?
2. Do you find Matt Sandusky to be credible? Do you think that his adoptive mother and all 5 of his former brothers and sister in the Sandusky family are liars when they say they don't buy Matt's story that he was repeatedly abused by their father?
3. Do you think that repressed memory therapy is a reliable way to get a possible victim to make truthful allegations of CSA?

Do you realize Ziegler made up the "repressed memory therapy" when it comes to Matt Sandusky? It was just therapy.
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/on-matt-sandusky-and-the-worst-guy-ive-ever-dealt-with/

 

[UncleLar]

Really? Sassano testified that the March date in 2002 was pinned down as Mike McQueary told them he was watching the movie "Rudy" before heading to Lasch (which is what supposedly "motivated" him to go there with his newly bought sneakers to drop them off and then watch film). Sassano said he scoured TV Guides in February and March 2002 to pin down the date that the prosecution used in the Presentment, their Indictments and with the court for months upon months despite the Defense saying from the get go that the event occured in February 2001 which Sandusky said he remembered quite clearly because he had just gotten back from his interview for the open Head Coaching Job at UVa in late January 2001 (i.e., he remembered it happening directly after he returned). So your notion that the prosecution had no way of establishing the correct date is ludicrous as Sandusky named the PRECISE DATE (Friday, February 9, 2001) from the get go! BTW genius, Mike McQueary's and Sassano's bull$hit story about "locating the correct date, Friday 3/8/2002, via the movie Rudy" is complete bull$hit as none of the State College broadcasters were broadcasting "Rudy" 2/9/2001 and it is quite likely that Sassano crafted this story for McQueary to make his claim of Friday, March 8, 2002 (a night that a State College Cable Channel was broadcasting "Rudy") seem more "credible" as he could connect it to watching "Rudy" which motivated him to go to Lasch to watch film, LMFAO! It was another lie and complete BS story that the prosecution conjured out of thin air! What is especially laughable is the prosecution claiming the party that JS named as being present with him on 2/9/2001 in the locker-room that night (and AM also being present with Sandusky earlier in the day on some type of TSM related trip earlier in the day that could be confirmed and that they went to Lasch for a "Friends Fitness Program" workout that evening upon returning) is definitively incorrect, when the prosecution was completely full of $hit regarding the timing of the event and the Defense was precisely correct from the get go! Again, JS says it can be confirmed by TSM that AM was with him all day 2/9/2001.....JS was correct about the precise date as well.....etc...., but the prosecution had ALL OF THEIR FACTS WRONG about even the date of the event and kept their facts wrong for months upon months upon months.....and only changed them after the DEFENSE DEFINITIVELY PROVED THEM WRONG VIA MEMOS, but the prosecution has more "credibility" on these topics, including who was with Sandusky that day, than the Defense has??? Right-o Mr. corrupt prosecutors "bootlicker" and "water-carrier" - LMFAO!

"So your notion that the prosecution had no way of establishing the correct date is ludicrous"

Really? Now exactly where did I present that notion? I presented evidence where McQueary's original police statement said it was either 2001 or 2002. I also responded to a question about how McQueary testified in the December hearings. So where pray tell, did I make all these claims about the prosecution and become a "bootlicker" and "water-carrier"? The only statement I made about the prosecution was that perhaps it was likely that they focused on the 2002 date because it avoided the statute of limitations issue. How does that make me a "bootlicker".

What you are doing is typical of so many in this case. You resort to name calling and personal attacks that have no basis in fact.

 

[masterbaker65]

Yep, and Heim giving cars to kids for "prizes" for contests that they didn't enter or know about is strictly on the up and up as well.

Bingo! That's why AM didn't testify.

 

[jjsocrates]

You're right. Exactly. If the Second Mile was contacted, as most think they were, then someone can get it right from those who were there in real time. Raykovitz could say whether it is AM or not. After all, wasn't it he or Heim that said this issue was a "non-starter" or something like that?

Great idea! Let's just ask The Second Mile to scotch tape all of the shredded records together. After all - destroying evidence isn't a crime if you're not under investigation.

 

[jjsocrates]

From the preliminary hearing transcript (p 42)
From the same hearing transcript (p 86)

Q: Mr. Mcqueary, the year that this happened, can you locate this event to any other event in your life that tells you if it was 2002 versus 2001 or another year?

A: Not right off the top of my head. I'm sure if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something, but, no, not right now.

Franklin already responded, but I was going to say the same thing. THAT right there would be, um, perjury by Mr. McQueary would it not? So did he FORGET the whole Rudy story - or was that whole Rudy story made up? No other event in his life that tells him what year it was. Nope. None. Nothing right off the top of my head. So - WHY was McQueary in Lasch? Wasn't it because he got inspired by Rudy and had to drop off some shoes or something.

THIS is why people say that McQueary can't keep his stories (lies) straight.

And actually "if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something" takes on a WHOLE new meaning through that lens. In other words - give Mike McQueary 30 minutes and he can make up a brand NEW story!

 

[sluggo72]

Franklin already responded, but I was going to say the same thing. THAT right there would be, um, perjury by Mr. McQueary would it not? So did he FORGET the whole Rudy story - or was that whole Rudy story made up? No other event in his life that tells him what year it was. Nope. None. Nothing right off the top of my head. So - WHY was McQueary in Lasch? Wasn't it because he got inspired by Rudy and had to drop off some shoes or something.

THIS is why people say that McQueary can't keep his stories (lies) straight.

And actually "if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something" takes on a WHOLE new meaning through that lens. In other words - give Mike McQueary 30 minutes and he can make up a brand NEW story!

when I read the life event question, I thought they were trying to set him up. Let's see, what other life event would have MM had during that time??? Hmmmm how about , 'gee I remember I was a GA and made $x squat in pay, and Kenny Jackson just left to go to the Steelers, so no I didn't think at all about becoming a full time coach making $20 timesX, in fact when I called JVP to arrange a meeting, he said, 'I don't have a job for you', to which you replied, 'its not about that' and JVP said come over'. It wouldn't have been that life event would it?? But you remember watching Rudy and that inspired you to watch more film??? Fuxxxing really?? Not Kenny Jackson leaving, and therefore there was an opening on JVP staff, at your position, which only comes around, say with Haley's comet?? Didn't know the life event.

 

[Bobpsu]

Please remove identifying names of family members that tie to victims. Thank you.

NO!

 

[simons96]

NO!

are you saying no to Allen Myers??

 

[UncleLar]

Franklin already responded, but I was going to say the same thing. THAT right there would be, um, perjury by Mr. McQueary would it not? So did he FORGET the whole Rudy story - or was that whole Rudy story made up? No other event in his life that tells him what year it was. Nope. None. Nothing right off the top of my head. So - WHY was McQueary in Lasch? Wasn't it because he got inspired by Rudy and had to drop off some shoes or something.

THIS is why people say that McQueary can't keep his stories (lies) straight.

And actually "if you give me 30 minutes, I can think of something" takes on a WHOLE new meaning through that lens. In other words - give Mike McQueary 30 minutes and he can make up a brand NEW story!

Perjury? How? McQueary clearly stated under oath that he was "relatively sure" that it was 2001. By no means is that anything close to being definitive. Yet Sara Ganim wrote in the Hbg Patriot that McQueary was "adamant" that the date was 2001. NFW. "Relatively sure" isn't even close to being adamant. And it is consistent with his original statement to police that the event was either 2001 or 2002. Yet Ganim and the Patriot News tries to create a newsworthy story by claiming that McQueary changed his story. Too many people buy into this concept of McQueary changing his story when the reality is that he was remarkably consistent given that he was talking about things that happened a decade earlier.

 

[marshall23]

What about Heim and JR??? I am sure they have been asked, right?

You don't ask if you don't want to know. There is no doubt that Jack and Bruce knew who Jerry was spending time with.

 

[marshall23]

Perjury? How? McQueary clearly stated under oath that he was "relatively sure" that it was 2001. By no means is that anything close to being definitive. Yet Sara Ganim wrote in the Hbg Patriot that McQueary was "adamant" that the date was 2001. NFW. "Relatively sure" isn't even close to being adamant. And it is consistent with his original statement to police that the event was either 2001 or 2002. Yet Ganim and the Patriot News tries to create a newsworthy story by claiming that McQueary changed his story. Too many people buy into this concept of McQueary changing his story when the reality is that he was remarkably consistent given that he was talking about things that happened a decade earlier.

One has to consider when addressing MM's recall.....how much did he actually remember and how much was remembered for him?

 

[canuckhal]

You don't ask if you don't want to know. There is no doubt that Jack and Bruce knew who Jerry was spending time with.

One problem is that MM words have been twisted by so many people. In this case, the question about some significant event to get at the year, and IIRC Rudy was not a significant event. To find out the year, didn't Sasano look through the tv guide to see when Rudy was airing.

However, MM has not been consistent in his testimony, re: what he told his father, Dranov, Curley, Schultz. And his testimony differs from theirs. It will be interesting how his lawsuit shakes out if it gets to court. I still don't understand why PSU has decided to see this one through to the end.

 

[Chris92]

when I read the life event question, I thought they were trying to set him up. Let's see, what other life event would have MM had during that time??? Hmmmm how about , 'gee I remember I was a GA and made $x squat in pay, and Kenny Jackson just left to go to the Steelers, so no I didn't think at all about becoming a full time coach making $20 timesX, in fact when I called JVP to arrange a meeting, he said, 'I don't have a job for you', to which you replied, 'its not about that' and JVP said come over'. It wouldn't have been that life event would it?? But you remember watching Rudy and that inspired you to watch more film??? Fuxxxing really?? Not Kenny Jackson leaving, and therefore there was an opening on JVP staff, at your position, which only comes around, say with Haley's comet?? Didn't know the life event.

Didn't Mike spend hours upon hours with Kerry Collins on the '93 and '94 squads? Well, Kerry played in the Super Bowl TWELVE days prior to the incident. One week prior to the incident, Wally Richardson signed with an XFL team. 18 days after the incident, Rashard Casey's scramble against Illinois was named the college football PLAY OF THE YEAR. If you can't remember that 30 day stretch of events of former teammates around the shower incident.....

On a side note, "Rudy" was on TBS that night starting at 8:05 and I didn't buy any TV Guides.

 

[L.T. Young]

when I read the life event question, I thought they were trying to set him up. Let's see, what other life event would have MM had during that time??? Hmmmm how about , 'gee I remember I was a GA and made $x squat in pay, and Kenny Jackson just left to go to the Steelers, so no I didn't think at all about becoming a full time coach making $20 timesX, in fact when I called JVP to arrange a meeting, he said, 'I don't have a job for you', to which you replied, 'its not about that' and JVP said come over'. It wouldn't have been that life event would it?? But you remember watching Rudy and that inspired you to watch more film??? Fuxxxing really?? Not Kenny Jackson leaving, and therefore there was an opening on JVP staff, at your position, which only comes around, say with Haley's comet?? Didn't know the life event.

 

[Chris92]

Page 1, February 9, 2001

 

[L.T. Young]

Page 1, February 9, 2001

It was a compliment. You nailed it.

 

[indynittany]

AM was not deemed credible because he got the year wrong. MM is deemed credible despite getting the year wrong and was the basis for AM using that specific date.

AM deemed not credible because of his drawing of the locker room. Janitor is deemed credible, yet was on tape saying it was not JS. Other janitor deemed credible, but testified to wrong layout of locker room.

Seems AM was deemed not credible because the OAG couldn't use him as a victim.

He only got the year wrong because he had just read the presentment.

 

[UncleLar]

One problem is that MM words have been twisted by so many people. In this case, the question about some significant event to get at the year, and IIRC Rudy was not a significant event. To find out the year, didn't Sasano look through the tv guide to see when Rudy was airing.

However, MM has not been consistent in his testimony, re: what he told his father, Dranov, Curley, Schultz. And his testimony differs from theirs. It will be interesting how his lawsuit shakes out if it gets to court. I still don't understand why PSU has decided to see this one through to the end.

I absolutely 100% agree with you that people twist McQueary's words.

But not consistent in his testimony? Sure - if you define things like him saying one time that he looked in the mirror twice, then another saying that he now remembers it was three times. If that's inconsistency in your mind, then I'd agree. But in my mind, he's been remarkably consistent with what's truly relevant. It's little irrelevant things that vary from time to time. And believe it or not, it's little things like that that actually reinforce his story as being true. If he was making things up, he'd have a pat memorized story that would be 100% consistent in every detail and he'd tell it the same way every time he's recited it. That's what people do who are lying. I see him as struggling with his recollection of an incident that happened 10 YEARS EARLIER. Your mind isn't a video recorder. It doesn't record then playback intricate details of things that happened a decade prior. Little variations are to be expected.

So what is it that you think is so different in each of his testimonies? What thing of any relevance has varied?

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

One problem is that MM words have been twisted by so many people. In this case, the question about some significant event to get at the year, and IIRC Rudy was not a significant event. To find out the year, didn't Sasano look through the tv guide to see when Rudy was airing.

However, MM has not been consistent in his testimony, re: what he told his father, Dranov, Curley, Schultz. And his testimony differs from theirs. It will be interesting how his lawsuit shakes out if it gets to court. I still don't understand why PSU has decided to see this one through to the end.

But his father never testified to a Grand Jury. Just ask him...

 

[StinkStankStunk]

This horse has probably been dragged about as far as it can be....without devolving into a "TOS"-worthy full-blown circle-jerk.


That said - and to try to put the wraps on this thing:

I understand the animosity towards Mike - from a visceral level.
It is a fairly predictable knee-jerk response given the events that transpired, and the questions that remain unanswered.

But "Mike" didn't inflame the dumpster fire - the dumpster fire that turned into the full blown conflagration that engulfed Penn State.

"Mike" was used - by others - as a tool, a lever, to accomplish that mission.

When this story broke:

1 - Why were we holding vigils on Old Main? Rather than holding protests on South Atherton Street (the 2nd Mile offices)?

2 - Why were we tearing down statues? Rather than marching on the AG and DPW and CYS offices in Harrisburg?

We were doing those things because "Mike" was used - by others - as a lever to push all of that stuff onto the Penn State Campus - - - - instead of the 2nd Mile and the relevant PA state agencies.

No matter what viewpoint you wish to take - when one applies reason and logic and intelligence - those facts are clearly evident.

In this whole sordid, nebulous affair - there are three absolutes that should be evident to any engaged, intelligent observer:

1 - The MOST responsible parties for this catastrophe (and, just to be clear, the catastrophe I am talking about is not "Sandusky", the catastrophe I am talking about is the fallout from "Sandusky") were the leaders of the 2nd Mile, and their allies and co-horts, many of them prominent members of the PSU BOT and PA State Government - - - and the folks in the OAG, DPW, CYS, and the other responsible state agencies.

2 - The fallout has - incredibly - never touched any of those folks, but instead was dropped like the Hiroshima bomb - directly on top of the PSU campus.

3 - The lever that was used - by others - to accomplish that feat was "Mike".

Those three facts are indisputable to any intelligent observer.

Focusing wrath on "Mike" is akin to blaming "uranium" for the devastation of Hiroshima.
Hell, just like "Mike" - the "uranium" was the first thing destroyed in that explosion

 

[BUFFALO LION]

the way I've read it, there is a Vic 2, but it is not AM. The reason it is not AM is 1) he got the date wrong (but really, other than JS, who didn't? 2) he drew a picture of the locker room/shower area poorly from memory of something 10 yrs prior. For the record Ray doesn't think he is vic 2 either.
Why don't they just ask JS?? He knows, correct?

Sandusky WAS asked ..... by Ziegler. And it's on tape.

Sandusky is on tape saying that he told Raykovitz it was Myers back in 2001 when Raykovitz first confronted him about it. Sandusky told Raykovitz in 2001 that he would make Myers available to anyone that wanted to talk to him, but since Raykovitz knew Sandusky and Myers had a close father/son relationship, he just fluffed it off and told Sandusky not to worry about it.

This may have been the same conversation where Raykovitz told Sandusky to "Just wear swim trunks the next time".

Not only did Myers confirm to Amendola's Investigator that Sandusky told him back in 2001 that he may have to talk to people about the incident, but it would make a whole lot more sense that he told Raykovitz who it was when Raykovitz confronted him in 2001 then that he wouldn't have.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I absolutely 100% agree with you that people twist McQueary's words.

But not consistent in his testimony? Sure - if you define things like him saying one time that he looked in the mirror twice, then another saying that he now remembers it was three times. If that's inconsistency in your mind, then I'd agree. But in my mind, he's been remarkably consistent with what's truly relevant. It's little irrelevant things that vary from time to time. And believe it or not, it's little things like that that actually reinforce his story as being true. If he was making things up, he'd have a pat memorized story that would be 100% consistent in every detail and he'd tell it the same way every time he's recited it. That's what people do who are lying. I see him as struggling with his recollection of an incident that happened 10 YEARS EARLIER. Your mind isn't a video recorder. It doesn't record then playback intricate details of things that happened a decade prior. Little variations are to be expected.

So what is it that you think is so different in each of his testimonies? What thing of any relevance has varied?

And yet you in your servient defense of the corrupt prosecutors apply a clear "double standard" to Alan Meyers - his "inconsistencies" are not proof he is telling the truth, but proof he is lying....proof he is not the party that was in the shower 2/9/2001....proof that he was never even in the locker-room because he can't draw it....etc... Despite the provable REDICULOUSNESS of the final conclusion given that Alan Myers' peers in The Second Mile can attest that he was one of the TSM participants closest to Sandusky during this time frame (late-1990s - early-2000s) and had FACTUALLY and UNQUESTIONABLY spent time in that very locker-room participating in the "TSM-sponsored Friends Fitness Program". But according to the corrupt, lying, immoral dirt-bag lawyer-turned-politician prosecuter / governor (and his equally corrupt political benefactor PSU BOT and TSM pals), Alan Meyers was not only lying about being V2, but his "inconsistencies" prove he is a liar and that he never in fact was ever in the Lasch locker-room (despite this being a PROVABLY ABSURD CONCLUSION which is CONTRARY to the known facts about Alan Myers, TSM, Jerry Sandusky and the "TSM Friends Fitness Program"!!!). Not only that but Sandusky has consistently maitained from the get go the CORRECT DATE and that Alan Meyers was the other party in the Lasch Building with him as a TSM Guest Participant in Friends Fitness the night of 2/9/2001 AND that Alan Meyers was with him earlier in the day of 2/9/2001 at a TSM Presentation which was several hours out-of-town from State College and that the went to Lasch for a Friends Fitness workout upon returning that evening! Not only that, but Sandusky told Raykovitz contemporaneous with the incident in 2001 that Alan Meyers was the TSM participant with him that evening. Sandusky also told Alan Meyers contemporaneous with the incident in 2001 that he might be contacted by PSU, TSM or possibly both about the event and that he should simply tell them the truth! But all of this tells you and your morally-vacuous, corrupt, hypocritical pals that you are in servitude to that Alan Meyers "inconsistencies" prove he is a "liar" and has never even been in the Lasch Building in his life....LMFAO at scumbag, say-anything, do-anything servile defenders of the corrupt scumbags such as yourself.

 

[Adlee73]

For those who believe AM isn't Victim 2 you must then come to one of these conclusions: A: Both Sandusky & AM conspired to present a fake McQueary victim. B: Jerry knowing AM wasn't Victim 2 somehow tricked AM into thinking he was. C: AM somehow mistook himself for being Victim 2. In order for either the first 2 to be true Jerry would've had to have known without a doubt McQueary couldn't ID Victim 2 or that the "real" Victim 2 would never come forward. Jerry's not the sharpest tool in the shed but he's not so dumb as to roll the dice on the "real" Victim 2 not being revealed. In the case of theory C it is impossible because in AM's statement he says Jerry warned him in 2001 the he may be contacted to explain what happened that night in the shower. That proves that it can't be an accident AM says he's Victim 2. It's important to note that if there were a possible Victim 2 that died the OAG most likely would've found records of him & made the suggestion at the hearing that that might be Victim 2. They didn't do that so the likelihood that the "real" Victim 2 is dead has diminished greatly. So if you're convinced AM isn't Victim 2 then by all means show us a detailed scenario with no holes that makes sense.