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

[francofan]

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.

The case is very strong that AM is v2. The case that anyone else is v2 is virtually non-existent. It is my understanding that there is or will be very soon an open ended supeona compeling AM to testify in Sandusky's PCRA hearings. If he does get served and I think that is likely, it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say. I hope that he gets a new lawyer as Andrew Shubin would probably be more interested in looking out for himself than protecting AM's interest. Even though AM collected a large settlement, I have the feeling that AM is not living the good life right now. I would suspect that his life is not that great right now, keeping a very low profile and not wanting to be seen in public. It seems like he has a conscience and I would imagine that his conscience is bothering him regarding his role in the incarceration of Sandusky. I suspect that deep down he really wants to come clean. If he does, it will be game over and Judge Cleland will have no choice but to order Sandusky's release.

 

[Adlee73]

The case is very strong that AM is v2. The case that anyone else is v2 is virtually non-existent. It is my understanding that there is or will be very soon an open ended supeona compeling AM to testify in Sandusky's PCRA hearings. If he does get served and I think that is likely, it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say. I hope that he gets a new lawyer as Andrew Shubin would probably be more interested in looking out for himself than protecting AM's interest. Even though AM collected a large settlement, I have the feeling that AM is not living the good life right now. I would suspect that his life is not that great right now, keeping a very low profile and not wanting to be seen in public. It seems like he has a conscience and I would imagine that his conscience is bothering him regarding his role in the incarceration of Sandusky. I suspect that deep down he really wants to come clean. If he does, it will be game over and Judge Cleland will have no choice but to order Sandusky's release.

I totally agree with you that AM is indeed Victim 2. I am positive he told the truth when he said nothing sexual happened that night McQueary saw them in the shower. Because nothing happened that is why much of it wasn't remembered by AM. He used alot of different communal showers between his time with Jerry & 2011 such as school stadium & gym showers, different PSU showers, golf course showers, camp showers & military showers. I wrote extensively about why he is Victim 2 at MandysPages.com where you can see a photo of him taken about 6mths to a year after the incident. Unfortunately he's painted himself into a corner. He most certainly will testify he's Victim 2 & I believe he likely has more evidence to prove it but I'm positive he'll also claim he was at least "groomed" that night in the shower & that he was molested on other occasions. You did a great job taking notes & presenting the contents of the hearing to us. Thank you.

 

[Legion of Lions]

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.

Credibility is ONLY dependent upon how does that person's testimony fit "the Story" that was engineered to convict Sandusky and anything Penn State. This means AM was not credible because he stated UNDER OATH that Sandusky DID NOT MOLEST HIM.

Funny, the other "special handling" (by the State) witness in this ordeal was "the Janitor"...who stated that the abuse he remembered DEFINITELY WAS NOT SANDUSKY!! So what do the courts of PA allow...they allow this testimony to be entered as a new victim "sighting" from a person suffering mentally - someone unfit for testimony and cross examination - other than the transcript of testimony. They once again "conveniently" left out the statements that Sandusky was NOT involved.

This is just one of MANY, MANY suspicious activities by the OAG in this case and proof positive (in my mind at least) that there are criminal activities here which need immediate attention.

For God's sake....start listing the "suspicious" activities, practices, legal opinions and court actions in this whole matter - its OVERWHELMING in strongly supporting OAG and PA Government legal abuse.

The only real thing missing here is ....what is EXACTLY the motive for all of this and how did the OAG and State get the OGBOT to support this criminal conspiracy.

This is not... AND NEVER HAS BEEN...a sports scandal....this is a scandal of political corruption, conspiracy and how the legal system of an entire state has been hi-jacked by a group INSIDE THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

 

[francofan]

He most certainly will testify he's Victim 2 & I believe he likely has more evidence to prove it but I'm positive he'll also claim he was at least "groomed" that night in the shower & that he was molested on other occasions. You did a great job taking notes & presenting the contents of the hearing to us. Thank you.

I agree that he will testify to being v2. Whether he will testify that he was molested is the key question. If he keeps Shubin as his attorney, he most certainly will. However, he seemed very sincere in his letters to the editors and in his statement to Curtis Everhart. He would have a lot of explaining to do if he walks back those words. Unlike Matt Sandusky, AM appears to have a conscience. There was a 10+ year relationship between AM and JS that appears to be like a father-son/family relationship with no indication that there was anything sexual. I think there is a reasonable chance that he will come clean.

 

[indynittany]

....Whether he will testify that he was molested is the key question......

All they have to do is ask him if he gave the statement to Amendola's investigator.

 

[francofan]

All they have to do is ask him if he gave the statement to Amendola's investigator.

I don't think it would hurt Sandusky's defense if they could get some corroborating witnesses to testify such as Curtis Everhart or AM's mother or brother who went with him when he made his statement to Everhart at Ammendola's offices. Have there ever been any comments or statements regarding the AM/JS relationship from other members of AM's family?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I agree that he will testify to being v2. Whether he will testify that he was molested is the key question. If he keeps Shubin as his attorney, he most certainly will. However, he seemed very sincere in his letters to the editors and in his statement to Curtis Everhart. He would have a lot of explaining to do if he walks back those words. Unlike Matt Sandusky, AM appears to have a conscience. There was a 10+ year relationship between AM and JS that appears to be like a father-son/family relationship with no indication that there was anything sexual. I think there is a reasonable chance that he will come clean.

Actually, he has never said he was molested in regards to 2/9/2001 including after being represented by Shubin - Alan Meyers has consistently said the diametric opposite about what MM reported (nothing sexual was transpiring in shower when MM walked in) - this is what has enraged prosecutors and motivated their attacks upon Alan Meyers calling him a "liar" and claiming he has never even been in the locker-room which is the clear lie as he most certainly has been in the locker-room with JS participating in TSM-sponsored Friends Fitness Program, was with JS earlier that very day regarding a TSM Event, JS reported him contemporaneously in 2001 to TSM as the party in the shower and almost certainly is the true V2 as nobody else has even remotely come forward. He testified that abuse occured on other occasions, but has consistently testified not on that specific night which is what enraged Corrupt AG Corbutt and his clown investigators and prosecutors (i.e., Alan Meyers wouldn't do their bidding and lie for them as MM would in regards to the specific incident on the evening of 2/9/2001 - specifically, tell a lie that would support the lies that the OAG published in their sham Presentment -Statement of Mistruths). IOW, because AM insisisted upon telling the truth about that specific event rather than tell the lies the OAG instructed him to tell in support of their "Presentment Invented" FALSE NARRATIVE and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, they have assassinated his character called him a liar, etc...despite clearly being V2 - go figure!?!? What a bunch of morally-corrupt, self-serving dirtbags - none bigger than Head Dirtbag Corbutt and the corrupt, self-serving GOP Apparatchik Machine that created him!!!

 

[BFPSU]

Wouldn't just the tape of the cops/investigators coaching victims caught on tape that was revealed during the trial be enough for a re-trial??

 

[francofan]

You did a great job taking notes & presenting the contents of the hearing to us. Thank you.

You are very welcome. It certainly was an interesting three days of testimony where a lot of new information was added to the record and I think it has made Sandusky's chances for a winning PCRA much more probable.

I am not a court stenographer. I am not the best real-time note taker . I wasn't able to hear 100% of the testimony and tried to get verbatim testimony whenever possible, but it wasn't easy. I am not a journalist and I have my own opinions and biases, but I tried to report what was said as much as possible.

 

[francofan]

Actually, he has never said he was molested in regards to 2/9/2001 including after being represented by Shubin - Alan Meyers has consistently said the diametric opposite about what MM reported (nothing sexual was transpiring in shower when MM walked in) - this is what has enraged prosecutors and motivated their attacks upon Alan Meyers calling him a "liar" and claiming he has never even been in the locker-room which is the clear lie as he most certainly has been in the locker-room with JS participating in TSM-sponsored Friends Fitness Program, was with JS earlier that very day regarding a TSM Event, JS reported him contemporaneously in 2001 to TSM as the party in the shower and almost certainly is the true V2 as nobody else has even remotely come forward. He testified that abuse occured on other occasions, but has consistently testified not on that specific night which is what enraged Corrupt AG Corbutt and his clown investigators and prosecutors (i.e., Alan Meyers wouldn't do their bidding and lie for them as MM would in regards to the specific incident on the evening of 2/9/2001 - specifically, tell a lie that would support the lies that the OAG published in their sham Presentment -Statement of Mistruths). IOW, because AM insisisted upon telling the truth about that specific event rather than tell the lies the OAG instructed him to tell in support of their "Presentment Invented" FALSE NARRATIVE and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, they have assassinated his character called him a liar, etc...despite clearly being V2 - go figure!?!? What a bunch of morally-corrupt, self-serving dirtbags - none bigger than Head Dirtbag Corbutt and the corrupt, self-serving GOP Apparatchik Machine that created him!!!

There was testimony at the hearing this week from a prosecutor or one of the OAG investigators that said one of the stories floating around was that AM claimed that the incident in the shower was the last time that JS molested him. The problem is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there and that is why that I think it is vital to get AM on the record and hopefully AM will come clean. If he can credibly say that JS molested him and that he was one of the worst victims and that he was subjected to OS and AS, then Sandusky's appeal will be toast and life can go on. If he can credibly say that nothing happened, then the case is closed and Sandusky walks.

 

[Zenophile]

If he can credibly say that nothing happened, then the case is closed and Sandusky walks.

Would AM's testimony affect the charges from other accusers against JS?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

I agree that he will testify to being v2. Whether he will testify that he was molested is the key question. If he keeps Shubin as his attorney, he most certainly will. However, he seemed very sincere in his letters to the editors and in his statement to Curtis Everhart. He would have a lot of explaining to do if he walks back those words. Unlike Matt Sandusky, AM appears to have a conscience. There was a 10+ year relationship between AM and JS that appears to be like a father-son/family relationship with no indication that there was anything sexual. I think there is a reasonable chance that he will come clean.

Just the actions of the Prosectors tell you they know Myers was the REAL Victim 2, or the kid in the shower if you will.

The ONLY way a FAKE Victim 2, Shubin, and Sandusky would make the claims they did, both before and after Shubin became involved, and feel secure that there wouldn't be a REAL Victim 2 come forward to collect his $3 million dollars, was if the REAL Victim 2 was dead and Myers and Sandusky KNEW it.

Sandusky and Myers would have had to have known it as early as 2001 since Sandusky offered to let Raykovitz talk to Myers back then. That would mean the REAL Victim 2 would have probably died in that short period of time between the shower incident and Sandusky's talk with Raykovitz. If that's when the REAL Victim 2 died, and Sandusky really IS the monster the AG says he is and really DID rape the kid, the REAL Victim 2's death would be BEYOND suspicious.

If Sandusky, Myers, or both knocked off some kid in 2001 so that he wouldn't talk, that would make what has happened up to this point comparative child's play, if that's at all possible. But yet the AG never even bothered to pursue that angle. To the point that when they say they thought Myers was lying (and would then switch from being a "victim" to being a "suspect" in the REAL Victim 2's death with an undisputed $3 million dollar payout as the motive), the Prosecutors just let Shubin give them a forged statement, and hide Myers away in an undisclosed location without a fight. What Prosecutor in their right mind is going to allow a suspected murderer to do that??? Answer? None.

 

[francofan]

Would AM's testimony affect the charges from other accusers against JS?

Absolutely. If AM credibly testifies that JS never abused him, I believe that Cleland will throw out all of the verdicts.

If there is a new trial, AF's accusation would have to stand on its own, and there is a ton of potential impeachment material out there.

I believe that the OAG could include any accusers that testified at the first trial or anybody else including anyone who received a settlement from Penn State in a new trial. If there is a new trial, I like JS's chances.

 

[UncleLar]

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.

You've got me confused with somebody else. I've never defended the prosecutors and I've never attacked Alan Myers. I abhor your personal attacks, anyone's personal attacks for that matter, and I particularly abhor them when you direct them at me for a stance that I've never taken.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Wouldn't just the tape of the cops/investigators coaching victims caught on tape that was revealed during the trial be enough for a re-trial??

In Chinatown?

 

[francofan]

In Chinatown?

Al Lindsay has told me when they discover new information of irregularities in the case, they say something along the lines of what do you expect, it's Sanduskytown - a reference to the Chinatown movie.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You've got me confused with somebody else. I've never defended the prosecutors and I've never attacked Alan Myers. I abhor your personal attacks, anyone's personal attacks for that matter, and I particularly abhor them when you direct them at me for a stance that I've never taken.

Nice try, you have repeatedly defended prosecutorial misconduct with your statements - for instance, you continue to label MM as a "credible witness" relative to the Prosecutor's Presentment and Indictments' claims of him being a credible "star eyewitness" to their claims. MM's own statements and ever-changing stories defacto destroy his credibility relative to the PROSECUTOR's claims of what he "eyewitnessed" (which is the only "credibilty" that matters relative to the Judiciary System) CONTRARY to your claims about MM's credibilty as a "State Witness". By MM's own admission his statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative and that he did not eyewitness an overt sexual act and NEVER told ANYONE that he had. Speculating as to what might have been going on is NOT ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE of any kind regardless of your ABSURD spinning in defense of the dirtbag prosecutors disgraceful, Unconstitutional and morally-reprehensible tactics and outright prosecutorial misconduct (including holding a gun to MM's head to contort his statements by using the threat of PROSECUTION for his own illegal activities as leverage against him to get him to do their bidding).

 

[francofan]

Nice try, you have repeatedly defended prosecutorial misconduct with your statements - for instance, you continue to label MM as a "credible witness" relative to the Prosecutor's Presentment and Indictments' claims of him being a credible "star eyewitness" to their claims. MM's own statements and ever-changing stories defacto destroy his credibility relative to the PROSECUTOR's claims of what he "eyewitnessed" (which is the only "credibilty" that matters relative to the Judiciary System) CONTRARY to your claims about MM's credibilty as a "State Witness". By MM's own admission his statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative and that he did not eyewitness an overt sexual act and NEVER told ANYONE that he had. Speculating as to what might have been going on is NOT ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE of any kind regardless of your ABSURD spinning in defense of the dirtbag prosecutors disgraceful, Unconstitutional and morally-reprehensible tactics and outright prosecutorial misconduct (including holding a gun to MM's head to contort his statements by using the threat of PROSECUTION for his own illegal activities as leverage against him to get him to do their bidding).

MM is the opposite of a credible witness. He has told numerous different stories and his stories do match up with the actions of the corroborating witnesses. His story changed drastically from 2001 to 2010 when Frank Fina and the crew at the OAG enter the scene and the OAG may have had some leverage in influencing MM's statements.

 

[simons96]

MM is the opposite of a credible witness. He has told numerous different stories and his stories do match up with the actions of the corroborating witnesses. His story changed drastically from 2001 to 2010 when Frank Fina and the crew at the OAG enter the scene and the OAG may have had some leverage in influencing MM's statements.

it bears repeating . . .

I believe it was Ray Blehar who provided Barry Bozeman and me with the photos and diagram of the coach's locker room in the Lasch building.

I challenge anyone to read Mike's testimony at trial, while looking at these photos and diagrams, and find anything he said credible.

 

[Bobpsu]

are you saying no to Allen Myers??

NO to....Please remove identifying names of family members that tie to victims.

 

[simons96]

NO to....Please remove identifying names of family members that tie to victims.

(I know) . . . love to know how Roxine knows he is a "victim" . . .

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Absolutely. If AM credibly testifies that JS never abused him, I believe that Cleland will throw out all of the verdicts.

If there is a new trial, AF's accusation would have to stand on its own, and there is a ton of potential impeachment material out there.

I believe that the OAG could include any accusers that testified at the first trial or anybody else including anyone who received a settlement from Penn State in a new trial. If there is a new trial, I like JS's chances.

If there is a retrial (and, for the record I think it is HIGHLY unlikely, but I VERY MUCH hope it comes to pass):

It would be an event that would make Sandusky Part 1 look like a walk in the park

Something like that - as improbable as it may be - could be just the type of "world changer" that is necessary to catalyze a real honest look at this entire affair.

As I was writing last night - so many of the folks who SHOULD have been leading the charge to really look at WTF was going down, have turned out to be leg-pissing hypocrites.....and that has been very disheartening.
Something like this could be just what the doctor ordered.

 

[LundyPSU]

How can the witness be credible when the act he described is impossible? So impossible, that prosecutors needed to use props to depict what the witness claimed was occurring.

 

[sluggo72]

it bears repeating . . .

I believe it was Ray Blehar who provided Barry Bozeman and me with the photos and diagram of the coach's locker room in the Lasch building.

I challenge anyone to read Mike's testimony at trial, while looking at these photos and diagrams, and find anything he said credible.

IIRC Ray is also on record as saying AM cant be Vic 2 because of his drawing of the locker room. That he should have been able to draw.

 

[simons96]

IIRC Ray is also on record as saying AM cant be Vic 2 because of his drawing of the locker room. That he should have been able to draw.

I respect Ray's work, even if I don't agree with all his conclusions.

that being said, it seems odd that a lot of leeway was given to the victims in terms of dates of abuse, details of the abuse, etc . . . under the pretense that victims of CSA often have conflicting memories of their trauma

but somehow Allen Myers is being held to a different standard . . .my opinion is that he is, in fact, "Victim 2", but also not a real victim.

 

[Rollin Stone]

I have heard that JS actually took AM to see/speak with Tim Curley regarding the shower incident. Either that or offer to bring him to Curley and TC said it wasn't necessary. th

 

[biacto]

The problem here is the money Penn State shit away on the "victims" and assuming responsibility where there was none. Especially the turd Matt.

 

[francofan]

I have heard that JS actually took AM to see/speak with Tim Curley regarding the shower incident. Either that or offer to bring him to Curley and TC said it wasn't necessary. th

JS did not take AM to see Curley; he offered to produce AM, but Curley said it wasn't necessary.

 

[Rollin Stone]

JS did not take AM to see Curley; he offered to produce AM, but Curley said it wasn't necessary.

Which another reason the OAG didn't want TC to testify.

 

[indynittany]

Would AM's testimony affect the charges from other accusers against JS?

I would think the verdict that most needs to be thrown out is Aaron Fisher (V1).

 

[WeR0206]

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

My biggest issue with MM isn't that he was used by corrupt prosecutors but that he ALLOWED himself to be used and when he figured out that he was being used, he never spoke up to correct the record (re: the FALSE GJP), offered an apology, etc..

His 2010 statement to OAG that he was certain sodomy was occurring (or that it looked like it was occurring) and reported it as such to PSU admins/Joe is completely in-congruent with his and everyone else's actions in 2001 and MM's other testimony, especially his testimony during the 12/16/11 prelim where he said he wasn't 100% sure what was occurring bc he couldn't really see anything (hands/privates/etc.) and when TC called him a few weeks later to follow up he never expressed dissatisfaction or said that MORE needed to be done besides informing TSM and revoking JS' guest privileges.

So this means that according to his 2010 statement and subsequent testimony MM was 99.999% sure JS was raping a kid (based on the sounds and positioning he observed), he told some college admins this and when MM noticed JS was never arrested and questioned (or even had his access to kids restricted) he never once expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done to ANYONE that he made his initial report to or anyone else....so, either MM is a terrible person for waiting 9 years to finally make a written statement to LE or he played revisionist history to try and save his own hide thus throwing everyone he told about 2001 under the bus.

If MM was certain that JS was sodomizing a boy or that it looked like that was happening based on the positioning he saw, why didn't he ever:
-file a police report
-ask Schultz to send someone from UPPD to get his statement
-place anonymous call to childline (if he was worried for some bizzare reason about telling the UPPD about this)
or
-express dissatisfaction or say more needed to be done when TC followed up with MM a few weeks later re: PSU's action plan??

IMO MM's main flaw was him playing revisionist history in 2010 by telling OAG that he reported certain abuse to PSU admins when in reality he wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing b/c he couldn't really see anything but was weirded out. MM's written statement and GJ testimony gave the OAG enough wiggle room to make the claim in the GJP that MM eye-witnessed a child rape and reported it as such to PSU admins.

All MM had to do was tell the truth and he didn't. Without MM's revisionist history the OAG had no way to tie everything to PSU b/c 1998 was fully investigated by everyone under the sun and the janitor stories weren't enough. MM's written statement and GJ testimony was the linchpin for the OAG's entire case against PSU.

MM was the tool the OAG needed to ensure the attention was directed to PSU instead of the real enablers you point out (TSM, CYS, OAG etc.).

 

[francofan]

I would think the verdict that most needs to be thrown out is Aaron Fisher (V1).

If AM credibly states he is v2 and was not abused, all of the verdicts from the original trial will be thrown out.

 

[Diego Badman]

I don't think it would hurt Sandusky's defense if they could get some corroborating witnesses to testify such as Curtis Everhart or AM's mother or brother who went with him when he made his statement to Everhart at Ammendola's offices. Have there ever been any comments or statements regarding the AM/JS relationship from other members of AM's family?

Unfortunately, Curtis Everhart passed away. I knew Curtis well, and he had some health issues which confined him to a wheel chair later in his life. He was a cop. He was a U. S. Marshall. He was very serious about law enforcement. I think he passed in 2012--2013 at the latest. It's a shame because he would be a very credible witness.

 

[UncleLar]

Nice try, you have repeatedly defended prosecutorial misconduct with your statements - for instance, you continue to label MM as a "credible witness" relative to the Prosecutor's Presentment and Indictments' claims of him being a credible "star eyewitness" to their claims. MM's own statements and ever-changing stories defacto destroy his credibility relative to the PROSECUTOR's claims of what he "eyewitnessed" (which is the only "credibilty" that matters relative to the Judiciary System) CONTRARY to your claims about MM's credibilty as a "State Witness". By MM's own admission his statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative and that he did not eyewitness an overt sexual act and NEVER told ANYONE that he had. Speculating as to what might have been going on is NOT ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE of any kind regardless of your ABSURD spinning in defense of the dirtbag prosecutors disgraceful, Unconstitutional and morally-reprehensible tactics and outright prosecutorial misconduct (including holding a gun to MM's head to contort his statements by using the threat of PROSECUTION for his own illegal activities as leverage against him to get him to do their bidding).

Yes I have stated that Mike McQueary is a credible witness. That's a statement about McQueary and has nothing to do with the prosecutors. I have also stated that I believe the prosecutors focused on 2002 because it avoided the 2001 statute of limitations issue. I have also stated that the prosecutors likely overcharged. I also accused them of grandstanding with the press conference announcing the Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz indictments. So I am at a loss as to how I am a "bootlicker" for the prosecution.

You also come up with tons of other exaggerations in your remarks that don't hold up to scrutiny. How about saying "his (McQueary's) statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative". 100%? There's an exaggeration. The one thing that could be called speculative was whether or not penetration occurred during the shower incident. And because McQueary exercised care in explaining that he didn't see actual penetration, even if you want to call it speculative, it was certainly truthful. He carefully distinguished what he eye-witnessed vs what he "ear"-witnessed (and for the record, contrary to your remarks, nowhere is there any rule of law that would suggest that an eyewitness statement "is the only 'credibility' that matters to the Judiciary System" - that's pure invented hogwash on your part).

And, while there are tons of rumors suggesting that the prosecution coerced McQueary into testify under threat of prosecution, there is no actual evidence that that actually happened. That's all internet rumor mill which, for some reason, you and others like to give more credibility to than actual sworn testimony. I have no idea if that happened of not. If it did, I would be the first to suggest that the prosecution was out of line for doing so. So if my refusal to fall in line with your rumor mill based accusations makes me a prosecution "bootlicker" (despite several statements on my part where I faulted the prosecution for their actions), I plead guilty.

P.S. I still would like to see someone detail the specific "ever changing" stories that McQueary has supposed told. Just don't try to argue that the date was an ever-changing story since from day one, he said he wasn't sure. And don't try to tell me that one statement that says he looked twice into a mirror while another says he's remembered a third time is an "ever changing story". Find me something of substance that hasn't been consistent.

 

[Bobpsu]

Yes I have stated that Mike McQueary is a credible witness. That's a statement about McQueary and has nothing to do with the prosecutors. I have also stated that I believe the prosecutors focused on 2002 because it avoided the 2001 statute of limitations issue. I have also stated that the prosecutors likely overcharged. I also accused them of grandstanding with the press conference announcing the Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz indictments. So I am at a loss as to how I am a "bootlicker" for the prosecution.

You also come up with tons of other exaggerations in your remarks that don't hold up to scrutiny. How about saying "his (McQueary's) statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative". 100%? There's an exaggeration. The one thing that could be called speculative was whether or not penetration occurred during the shower incident. And because McQueary exercised care in explaining that he didn't see actual penetration, even if you want to call it speculative, it was certainly truthful. He carefully distinguished what he eye-witnessed vs what he "ear"-witnessed (and for the record, contrary to your remarks, nowhere is there any rule of law that would suggest that an eyewitness statement "is the only 'credibility' that matters to the Judiciary System" - that's pure invented hogwash on your part).

And, while there are tons of rumors suggesting that the prosecution coerced McQueary into testify under threat of prosecution, there is no actual evidence that that actually happened. That's all internet rumor mill which, for some reason, you and others like to give more credibility to than actual sworn testimony. I have no idea if that happened of not. If it did, I would be the first to suggest that the prosecution was out of line for doing so. So if my refusal to fall in line with your rumor mill based accusations makes me a prosecution "bootlicker" (despite several statements on my part where I faulted the prosecution for their actions), I plead guilty.

P.S. I still would like to see someone detail the specific "ever changing" stories that McQueary has supposed told. Just don't try to argue that the date was an ever-changing story since from day one, he said he wasn't sure. And don't try to tell me that one statement that says he looked twice into a mirror while another says he's remembered a third time is an "ever changing story". Find me something of substance that hasn't been consistent.

You are the lawyer for WHO ?

 

[UncleLar]

You are the lawyer for WHO ?

Nobody. I'm voicing my opinion just like everyone else here. The only difference is that I'll typically back my statements up with supportive links, while many others simply blow smoke with claims that they can't back.

 

[jjsocrates]

Nobody. I'm voicing my opinion just like everyone else here. The only difference is that I'll typically back my statements up with supportive links, while many others simply blow smoke with claims that they can't back.

 

[Obliviax]

Yes I have stated that Mike McQueary is a credible witness. That's a statement about McQueary and has nothing to do with the prosecutors. I have also stated that I believe the prosecutors focused on 2002 because it avoided the 2001 statute of limitations issue. I have also stated that the prosecutors likely overcharged. I also accused them of grandstanding with the press conference announcing the Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz indictments. So I am at a loss as to how I am a "bootlicker" for the prosecution.

You also come up with tons of other exaggerations in your remarks that don't hold up to scrutiny. How about saying "his (McQueary's) statements to prosecutors regarding the 2/9/2001 are 100% speculative". 100%? There's an exaggeration. The one thing that could be called speculative was whether or not penetration occurred during the shower incident. And because McQueary exercised care in explaining that he didn't see actual penetration, even if you want to call it speculative, it was certainly truthful. He carefully distinguished what he eye-witnessed vs what he "ear"-witnessed (and for the record, contrary to your remarks, nowhere is there any rule of law that would suggest that an eyewitness statement "is the only 'credibility' that matters to the Judiciary System" - that's pure invented hogwash on your part).

And, while there are tons of rumors suggesting that the prosecution coerced McQueary into testify under threat of prosecution, there is no actual evidence that that actually happened. That's all internet rumor mill which, for some reason, you and others like to give more credibility to than actual sworn testimony. I have no idea if that happened of not. If it did, I would be the first to suggest that the prosecution was out of line for doing so. So if my refusal to fall in line with your rumor mill based accusations makes me a prosecution "bootlicker" (despite several statements on my part where I faulted the prosecution for their actions), I plead guilty.

P.S. I still would like to see someone detail the specific "ever changing" stories that McQueary has supposed told. Just don't try to argue that the date was an ever-changing story since from day one, he said he wasn't sure. And don't try to tell me that one statement that says he looked twice into a mirror while another says he's remembered a third time is an "ever changing story". Find me something of substance that hasn't been consistent.

well, for one, somebody has to explain why his father, mother and neighbor didn't do anything substantive that evening or years later. And, that leads to why Schultz and Curley didn't do much either. You've got five erstwhile pillars of the community that did next to nothing.

MM having a wishy washy story is about the only thing that satisfies that scenario. (Also, BTW, one has to consider that MM didn't see anything directly, but saw what he saw through a mirror).

 

[simons96]

well, for one, somebody has to explain why his father, mother and neighbor didn't do anything substantive that evening or years later. And, that leads to why Schultz and Curley didn't do much either. You've got five erstwhile pillars of the community that did next to nothing.

MM having a wishy washy story is about the only thing that satisfies that scenario. (Also, BTW, one has to consider that MM didn't see anything directly, but saw what he saw through a mirror).

funny, the SWIGJ who heard his testimony didn't find Mike credible

neither did the trial jury on the IDSI charge, and that was WITH 3 rebuttal witnesses throttled

 

[Obliviax]

funny, the SWIGJ who heard his testimony didn't find Mike credible

neither did the trial jury on the IDSI charge, and that was WITH 3 rebuttal witnesses throttled

Yep...MM isn't credible unless corroborated with a ton of creepy stores from people claiming to be victims. Especially if you are aware of all the machinations that went on in 1998 only to find there wasn't enough to press charges.