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

[francofan]

No he doesn't. He ignores all psychology of CSA to reach his conclusions.

I just made a fact based argument, with a timeline, that proves Ziegler most certainly has something to personally gain by taking the position he has. He's gone after every known victim trying to attack their character to save his career.

You specifically mentioned AF. He's gone after him relentlessly. He's stalked him IRL.

You are welcome to your opinions. I agree that Ziegler is obnoxious and that his bed side manner can be atrocious. I often disagree with his tactics and dislike the way he continuously insults people, often for no good reason. That being said, IMO his knowledge of the Penn State/Sandusky story and his therories of exactly what happened cannot be discounted.

Please explain what you mean when you say Ziegler ignores all pyschology of CSA to reach his conclusions.

What is your opinion of repressed memory therapy? Do you think it is a reliable way of getting an accuser to remember being molested that they couldn't otherwise recall? Do you think that it ever happens that an accuser could possibly embellish an accusation that they have been sexually molested? Are you aware of Ken Lanning's view that charlatans sometime make false claims of CSA? Do you think there may have been any charlatans in the Penn State/Sandusky story?

Regarding AF, AF invited Ziegler to meet with him: "“If he has questions about me, he should just ask them directly — reach out and shake my hand like a man,” he said."

http://ht.ly/MqHvs

I don't consider it stalking when Ziegler tries to find AF so he could asks him questions directly. It seems to me that Ziegler in his research has been able to uncover some important impeachment evidence which could be used against AF, if Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a retrial.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Missed this earlier. A plane mirror, such as what you would find in a locker room, does not distort depth perception (here's a link that explains the physics as to why it doesn't) and any changes to its clearness are probably negligible to the naked eye. Fun house mirrors, car door mirrors, yes you'll get distorted depth; locker room mirrors, not likely,

When you are looking into the locker-room mirror from an extremely acute angle rather than directly into the mirror??? You sure about that? The "physics" you linked deals with the "reflection" someone sees in regards to "depth" when looking directly into the mirror at their own reflection (i.e., the image will appear to be as far away as the party is from the mirror who is looking directly into it), but this does not necessarily hold true for a party looking into the mirror from an acute angle and LOOKING AT a "reflection" that is not themselves, but rather the reflection being caught by the mirror directly in front of it! IOW, the "physics" says the depth perception for Sandusky and the child might be accurate if they were looking directly into the mirror at themselves, but it does not say that a third-party looking into the mirror from an acute angle and seeing the reflection of what is directly in front of the mirror would necessarily perceive the correct depth perception (i.e, the distance the mirror is from the parties and the separation of distance between the parties).

 

[Bobpsu]

Missed this earlier. A plane mirror, such as what you would find in a locker room, does not distort depth perception (here's a link that explains the physics as to why it doesn't) and any changes to its clearness are probably negligible to the naked eye. Fun house mirrors, car door mirrors, yes you'll get distorted depth; locker room mirrors, not likely,

What a guy!

 

[marshall23]

Regarding Mike McQueary....

It seems likely that McQueary was extremely disturbed by what he had witnessed but he didn't actually see sexual assault and couldn't be sure about what was going on. After all, he testified that the kid was running around and didn't appear to be in distress.

I am not critical of MM for calling his dad instead of the police. I am not critical of him for reporting this to Paterno. I'm not even critical of him for not calling the police after the administration did the minimum to stop JS. I don't think MM knew how to process what he had witnessed so he trusted others to take care of things.

Here's where I am critical of MM. It seems likely that he embellished his story as time passed. This could be because the AG was pressuring him or because he felt guilty for not doing more to stop JS. In the process he has thrown Joe/C/S/S under the bus (but not his dad or Dranov).

This is what Lar doesn't understand IMO. We're not upset at the whistleblower. That part was good. The part where he might have been covering his own rear end while tossing others to the wolves is the problem.

I agree that MM was upset with what he thought may have been happening that night. Fact is, he didn't really see anything. Therefore, there was nothing to report to police or CYS. He didn't think ( nor did JM or Dr. D.) that he should do nothing. Hence the administrative report which went from JVP and then "up the ladder." What occurred in 98 only enhanced the impression that JS didn't molest this child(in the eyes of TC and GS.....and perhaps Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim as well.
We have seen the ruthlessness and unprincipled nature of Fina and his henchmen. I have no doubt that MM was convinced that he, his Dad and Dr. D (as well as other family members who had contemporaneous knowledge) could be indicted. Mike was in the proverbial rock and hard place. Note how he protested when the anal rape GJP was published? That went silent very, very quickly. Wonder why?
The OAG plan called for indictment of those who could dispute MM and to be sure the "victim" was "known only to God." Slam dunk. Mix in a crying janitor with dementia, and an "excited utterance" allowed by a compliant judge and you have two convictions with no victim...........A Commonwealth Special. An added bonus was the branding of PSU while TSM politically connected and government agencies skated unscathed.

 

[marshall23]

Regarding Mike McQueary....

It seems likely that McQueary was extremely disturbed by what he had witnessed but he didn't actually see sexual assault and couldn't be sure about what was going on. After all, he testified that the kid was running around and didn't appear to be in distress.

I am not critical of MM for calling his dad instead of the police. I am not critical of him for reporting this to Paterno. I'm not even critical of him for not calling the police after the administration did the minimum to stop JS. I don't think MM knew how to process what he had witnessed so he trusted others to take care of things.

Here's where I am critical of MM. It seems likely that he embellished his story as time passed. This could be because the AG was pressuring him or because he felt guilty for not doing more to stop JS. In the process he has thrown Joe/C/S/S under the bus (but not his dad or Dranov).

This is what Lar doesn't understand IMO. We're not upset at the whistleblower. That part was good. The part where he might have been covering his own rear end while tossing others to the wolves is the problem.

I agree that MM was upset with what he thought may have been happening that night. Fact is, he didn't really see anything. Therefore, there was nothing to report to police or CYS. He didn't think ( nor did JM or Dr. D.) that he should do nothing. Hence the administrative report which went from JVP and then "up the ladder." What occurred in 98 only enhanced the impression that JS didn't molest this child(in the eyes of TC and GS.....and perhaps Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim as well.
We have seen the ruthlessness and unprincipled nature of Fina and his henchmen. I have no doubt that MM was convinced that he, his Dad and Dr. D (as well as other family members who had contemporaneous knowledge) could be indicted. Mike was in the proverbial rock and hard place. Note how he protested when the anal rape GJP was published? That went silent very, very quickly. Wonder why?
The OAG plan called for indictment of those who could dispute MM and to be sure the "victim" was "known only to God." Slam dunk. Mix in a crying janitor with dementia, and an "excited utterance" allowed by a compliant judge and you have two convictions with no victim...........A Commonwealth Special. An added bonus was the branding of PSU while TSM politically connected and government agencies skated unscathed.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I agree that MM was upset with what he thought may have been happening that night. Fact is, he didn't really see anything. Therefore, there was nothing to report to police or CYS. He didn't think ( nor did JM or Dr. D.) that he should do nothing. Hence the administrative report which went from JVP and then "up the ladder." What occurred in 98 only enhanced the impression that JS didn't molest this child(in the eyes of TC and GS.....and perhaps Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim as well.
We have seen the ruthlessness and unprincipled nature of Fina and his henchmen. I have no doubt that MM was convinced that he, his Dad and Dr. D (as well as other family members who had contemporaneous knowledge) could be indicted. Mike was in the proverbial rock and hard place. Note how he protested when the anal rape GJP was published? That went silent very, very quickly. Wonder why?
The OAG plan called for indictment of those who could dispute MM and to be sure the "victim" was "known only to God." Slam dunk. Mix in a crying janitor with dementia, and an "excited utterance" allowed by a compliant judge and you have two convictions with no victim...........A Commonwealth Special. An added bonus was the branding of PSU while TSM politically connected and government agencies skated unscathed.

Yes, otherwise known as a "bait & switch" prosecution - i.e., the corrupt Hershey/MontCo GOP Apparatchik that created Corbutt/Fina/McGettigan "Commonwealth Special" prosecution......the same bull$hit this very same corrupt political apparatchik pulled on R. Budd Dwyer after LZ (Corbutt's "king-maker") had become OAG and people started nosing around the GOP regarding corruption and kick-backs on State-based contracts (i.e., they used a completely innocent R. Budd Dwyer as their "false narrative" fall-guy and prosecutorial "distraction" to keep the heat of themselves.)

 

[BobPSU92]

Point 1: The general public hates Penn State, Joe Paterno, and Penn State Football because of the allegation of "anal rape" in the Penn State shower.

Point 2: jerry sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge in the Penn State shower incident.

 

[john4psu]

That fact, #2, is totally lost to the media and public. They don't know or care to know it because of your point #1.

 

[UncleLar]

Actually, that is not accurate. He told the world that he thought maybe that is possibly what was going on based on what he initially heard and then briefly saw via two brief glimpses of a reflection in a fogged mirror from an acute angle (i.e., he saw the two parties in close proximity to one another in the reflection but could not see precisely what they were doing other than showering because he could only see from waist up of the taller party, who was JS. Given their height differential, this means he could only see the shorter party from the chest up.). MM then says he was so concerned by what he heard and then saw that he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off. Neither party seemed in distress and they were acting perfectly normal for the situation, so MM left the area, went to his Lasch Office to call his father and finally, upon his father's advice went directly to his father's house to speak with his father and family friend, Dr. Dranov (especially noteworthy that MM's father's advice, based on what MM told him immediately following the event, was to go over to his home to discuss with he & Dr. D....his advice was not to call "first responders" on 911 or at the UPPD [one in the same if you place a 911 call from Lasch Building]).

Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

What I will point you to is his testimony of December 12, 2011 in the Dauphin County Court. Here's that testimony.

Q: Could you describe exactly what transpired at that point?

A: Looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry was with a boy in the shower. And it appeared that Jerry was directly behing the boy and the boy was up against the wall with his hands up against the wall. Again, that glance or that look may have been a second or two.

I turned back to my locker and, in a very hurriedly and hastened state and shocked, opened by locker, swung the door open, put the shoes in, and then stepped to the right of my locker, to be frank with you, to make sure I saw what I think I saw with my own eyes without the reflection in the mirror

So I stepped a little bit to my right to look directly into the shower room

The testimony went off on a tangent for a bit then came back to this.

Q: You indicated that there was a second time that you looked into the shower?

A: Yes

Q: Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q: Describe - - after looking in the second time, did the position of the individuals change at all.

A: No.

Q: So whay you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.

A: Yes

McQueary then went back to his locker and slammed it. After slamming the locker he then walked back to the shower and looked in again. At this point, according to his testimony, they had separated. But you are the one who invented the part about them being "out of the shower and drying off". That's no where to be found in McQueary's testimony.

That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not. where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse. So even if you want to argue about the mirror causing depth perception (which it does not), he got a full look at them without looking in the mirror.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Point 1: The general public hates Penn State, Joe Paterno, and Penn State Football because of the allegation of "anal rape" in the Penn State shower.

Point 2: jerry sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge in the Penn State shower incident.

Point 3: The OAG's claim that MM "saw" and "witnessed" anal-intercourse in their Presentment and Indictments is a made up PREVARICATION and FABRICATION of the prosecutors as MM's own testimony to the SWIGJ very clearly proves (MM told the 30th SWIGJ the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of the corrupt, lying OAG's claim in the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment -- MM never testified before the 33rd SWIGJ and he defacto told the 30th SWIGJ, the SWIGJ he actually tesified to, that he DID NOT actually "see" or "eyewitness" an overt sexual act of any kind, let alone anal-intercourse, AND his concerns as to what might have been going on in the shower were speculation on his part. MM then went on to repeat this testimony, which DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the OAG's claims in the SWIGJ Presentment and Indictments, two more times under oath in a PA Court of Law - the preliminary hearing and the trial.).

 

[UncleLar]

Contrary to what UncleLed-Head is claiming, 100% of MM's "speculations" as to what he thought maybe, possibly, more-than-likely, probably, etc. ad infinitum modifiers...was going on, the ONLY THING that MM said, by his own admission, to anyone immediately following the incident that is ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF LAW (and therefore would have been relevant to investigators and prosecutors), was his statement as to what he ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY saw and "eyewitness". To wit, MM told everyone he spoke with including his father, Dr. D, JVP, etc... that he DID NOT actually see or witness a criminal sexual assault, but that he was concerned as to what MIGHT have been going on in the shower based on what he had heard when he first walked into Lasch and then the quickly glimpsed via the reflection in the mirror (which was not a criminal sexual assault, but rather two parties standing in very close proximity to one another under the same shower head in the communal Lasch Shower area). IOW, what MM told everyone was 100% "speculative" from a criminality and investigtive standpoint and completely worthless from an evidenciary standpoint within a PA Criminal Court. Not only that, but MM has testified multiple times in a PA Court of Law under oath to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the OAG claims in their fabricated prevarication-laced Presentment and Indictments - MM has stated multiple times under oath in a PA Court that he DID NOT SEE or EYEWITNESS any explicit and overt sexual act (not only that but says he never saw anything below the upper bodies of the parties) AND by his own volition extended his statement to say that he "NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had" actually and factually seen or eyewitnessed a sexual act of any kind, let alone the "anal intercourse" that the OAG's Presentment and Indictment FALSELY claim that he says he did "see" and "eyewitness"! IOW, MM's statments about a potential "sexual assault" in the shower were SPECULATIVE by his own admission and TESTIMONY under oath in a PA Court of Law contrary to what UncleLead-Head keeps claiming.

Nice name calling by the way. What exactly does that add to the discussion?

Can you please point me to where in the Pennsylvania Code of Law it says that a person can only testify to what they see and not what they hear?

That's several times that you have made these claims, IN CAPITAL LETTERS NO LESS, about what's admissible and what's not in PA courts. I'd like some sort of reference to support your position about what's admissible. If McQueary's testimony would have been inadmissible, Sandusky's attorneys, even as ineffective as they were, would have been all over it.

 

[marshall23]

Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

What I will point you to is his testimony of December 12, 2011 in the Dauphin County Court. Here's that testimony.

Q: Could you describe exactly what transpired at that point?

A: Looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry was with a boy in the shower. And it appeared that Jerry was directly behing the boy and the boy was up against the wall with his hands up against the wall. Again, that glance or that look may have been a second or two.

I turned back to my locker and, in a very hurriedly and hastened state and shocked, opened by locker, swung the door open, put the shoes in, and then stepped to the right of my locker, to be frank with you, to make sure I saw what I think I saw with my own eyes without the reflection in the mirror

So I stepped a little bit to my right to look directly into the shower room

The testimony went off on a tangent for a bit then came back to this.

Q: You indicated that there was a second time that you looked into the shower?

A: Yes

Q: Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q: Describe - - after looking in the second time, did the position of the individuals change at all.

A: No.

Q: So whay you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.

A: Yes

McQueary then went back to his locker and slammed it. After slamming the locker he then walked back to the shower and looked in again. At this point, according to his testimony, they had separated. But you are the one who invented the part about them being "out of the shower and drying off". That's no where to be found in McQueary's testimony.

That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not. where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse. So even if you want to argue about the mirror causing depth perception (which it does not), he got a full look at them without looking in the mirror.

 

[marshall23]

Funny how Dranov asked MM what he saw that very night. According to testimony, MM never gave the account he did in court.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

What I will point you to is his testimony of December 12, 2011 in the Dauphin County Court. Here's that testimony.

Q: Could you describe exactly what transpired at that point?

A: Looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry was with a boy in the shower. And it appeared that Jerry was directly behing the boy and the boy was up against the wall with his hands up against the wall. Again, that glance or that look may have been a second or two.

I turned back to my locker and, in a very hurriedly and hastened state and shocked, opened by locker, swung the door open, put the shoes in, and then stepped to the right of my locker, to be frank with you, to make sure I saw what I think I saw with my own eyes without the reflection in the mirror

So I stepped a little bit to my right to look directly into the shower room

The testimony went off on a tangent for a bit then came back to this.

Q: You indicated that there was a second time that you looked into the shower?

A: Yes

Q: Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q: Describe - - after looking in the second time, did the position of the individuals change at all.

A: No.

Q: So whay you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.

A: Yes

McQueary then went back to his locker and slammed it. After slamming the locker he then walked back to the shower and looked in again. At this point, according to his testimony, they had separated. But you are the one who invented the part about them being "out of the shower and drying off". That's no where to be found in McQueary's testimony.

That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not. where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse. So even if you want to argue about the mirror causing depth perception (which it does not), he got a full look at them without looking in the mirror.

Too funny, this is the prosecution's questioning and McQueary very clearly says he THOUGHT (i.e., SPECULATING) as to what they were doing - he does not say he "SAW" anal-intercourse as you claim @sshole! (here is what you wrote: That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not, where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse.). Again, you can't "think you see something" for it to be ADMISSIBLE EVIDENTIARY EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY @sshole! Saying you "think you saw something" is called SPECULATION, not EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY!!!

BTW, rather convenient how you leave off the Defense's Cross-Examination of this specific part of Mike McQueary's testimony which immediately and irrefutably rendered his pathetic prosecution-led bull$hit MEANINGLESS and WORTHLESS! During testimony in multiple trials (including Sandusky's, C/S/S's and the his SWIGJ testimony!) Mike McQueary was asked POINT BLANK whether he did or did not see an overt sex act of any kind, let alone "anal-intercourse", without using modifiers to qualify his response (IOW, was told to simply limit his statements to what he ACTUALLY "saw" and "eyewitnessed" in the shower without any qualification as to what he "thought" might be going on or any of the other bull$hit that he pulled in the prosecution-led, completely INADMISSIBLE crap that he SPECULATED about for the prosecution!). Mike McQueary stated the same thing he told the SWIGJ he actually testified to, which was the 30th SWIGJ, not the 33rd SWIGJ, that he DID NOT actually SEE or EYEWITNESS anal-intercourse or an overt sexual act of any kind and he said that he "NEVER TOLD ANYONE THAT HE HAD". Anyone includes his father, Dr. D, JVP, C/S/S, prosecutors, prosecutor's investigators, etc... you blithering and obfuscating @sshole! Speculating about what you think might have been going on is NOT SEEING OR EYEWITNESSING ANYTHING, especially in regards to the rules of evidence in a PA CRIMINAL COURT! You're full of $hit that MM saying "he THOUGHT he saw" qualifies as a bonafide "eyewitness statement", because it qualifies as the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE dip$hit, because of the qualifier "thought", which clearly identifies it as SPECULATIVE in a court of law, especially when asked point-blank not what you "thought" you saw, but what you ACTUALLY saw and you state that you FACTUALLY DID NOT SEE "anal-intercourse" or an overt sex act of any kind, which is what MM factually and actually told not just the SWIGJ but multiple other PA Courts under oath dip$hit!

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

We have seen the ruthlessness and unprincipled nature of Fina and his henchmen. quickly. Wonder why?
The OAG plan called for indictment of those who could dispute MM and to be sure the "victim" was "known only to God." Slam dunk. Mix in a crying janitor with dementia, and an "excited utterance" allowed by a compliant judge and you have two convictions with no victim...........A Commonwealth Special. An added bonus was the branding of PSU while TSM politically connected and government agencies skated unscathed.

^^^^ THIS.^^^^. Is it a coincidence that Fina was trying to "flip" Curley and Schultz and MM's story to them contained stronger and more graphic language than his story to either of Dad, Dranov or Joe?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Nice name calling by the way. What exactly does that add to the discussion?

Can you please point me to where in the Pennsylvania Code of Law it says that a person can only testify to what they see and not what they hear?

That's several times that you have made these claims, IN CAPITAL LETTERS NO LESS, about what's admissible and what's not in PA courts. I'd like some sort of reference to support your position about what's admissible. If McQueary's testimony would have been inadmissible, Sandusky's attorneys, even as ineffective as they were, would have been all over it.

You can testify and do all the prosecutor-led speculating you like - it does not have any EVIDENTIARY value moron. It is not EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY which is what the prosecutors claimed they had in both the Presentment and Indictment for that count -- not only did the Prosecution not have not have EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY as they claimed, but they lied about the PROBABLE CAUSE supporting the Indictment because Mike McQueary quite CLEARLY testified to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE to the SWIGJ than what the State claimed in their Indictment (which relied on the SWIGJ and Presentment). Mike McQueary DEFACTO told the 30th SWIGJ the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the State claims was their "Probable Cause" - i.e., MM told the 30th SWIGJ that he DID NOT ACTUALLY "SEE" OR "EYEWITNESS" an overt sex act of any kind, let alone anal-intercourse! The State lied both in the Presentment and Indictments that ANYONE ever told them they EYEWITNESSED and SAW Sandusky engaged in a sex act with the child, because Mike McQueary DEFACTO told the 30th SWIGJ the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE (i.e., he DID NOT factually see or eyewitness such a thing)!!! So the State LIED about having an "EYEWITNESS" to the most serious criminal Indictment and charge.......and not only did they LIE about having an EYEWITNESS as "probable cause" for the charge, but that is the ONLY third-party EYEWITNESS they had for any of the charges they brought (all of the other charges were supported by prosecution "victims" exclusively with no third-party verification or witnessing!).

You're full of $hit that "Pure Speculation" qualifies as "EYEWITNESS" testimony or has any evidentiary value whatsoever under Pennsylvania Judiciary Criminal Law.

 

[bdgan]

Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

What I will point you to is his testimony of December 12, 2011 in the Dauphin County Court. Here's that testimony.

Q: Could you describe exactly what transpired at that point?

A: Looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry was with a boy in the shower. And it appeared that Jerry was directly behing the boy and the boy was up against the wall with his hands up against the wall. Again, that glance or that look may have been a second or two.

I turned back to my locker and, in a very hurriedly and hastened state and shocked, opened by locker, swung the door open, put the shoes in, and then stepped to the right of my locker, to be frank with you, to make sure I saw what I think I saw with my own eyes without the reflection in the mirror

So I stepped a little bit to my right to look directly into the shower room

The testimony went off on a tangent for a bit then came back to this.

Q: You indicated that there was a second time that you looked into the shower?

A: Yes

Q: Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q: Describe - - after looking in the second time, did the position of the individuals change at all.

A: No.

Q: So whay you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.

A: Yes

McQueary then went back to his locker and slammed it. After slamming the locker he then walked back to the shower and looked in again. At this point, according to his testimony, they had separated. But you are the one who invented the part about them being "out of the shower and drying off". That's no where to be found in McQueary's testimony.

That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not. where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse. So even if you want to argue about the mirror causing depth perception (which it does not), he got a full look at them without looking in the mirror.

Yes that's the testimony. So let's also consider other testimony and piece this together.

• MM heard some slapping sounds. Could have been anal rape or could have been a kid running in water.
• MM saw JS behind the kid up against the wall. Could have been anal rape, could have been JS giving the kid a bear hug, or could have been JS holding the kid up to rinse his hair in the shower.
• It would be very difficult for a 6' man to anally rape a 4' boy while standing up. Furthermore, MM testified that the boy didn't appear to be in distress. Doesn't this make anal rape less likely and horsing around more likely?
• Dranov testified that MM didn't tell him about any particular sex act and did not provide any graphic description. Dranov testified that he asked MM 3 times if he saw anything sexual and that MM kept going back to the sounds. This is why Dranov suggested that MM report to Joe rather than police (Dranov admitted that he was a mandatory reporter).
  
• MM later testified that he never saw and erection or penetration.

Considering all of this testimony it seem likely that MM thought it could be sexual assault but he couldn't be sure. Don't you agree?

If MM was unsure, wouldn't it be likely that he used soft language when reporting to Curley & Shultz? What are the chances that he told them it was anal rape when he didn't actually witness such a thing and never told his father or Dranov that he witnessed such a thing?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You can testify and do all the prosecutor-led speculating you like - it does not have any EVIDENTIARY value moron. It is not EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY which is what the prosecutors claimed they had in both the Presentment and Indictment for that count -- not only did the Prosecution not have not have EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY as they claimed, but they lied about the PROBABLE CAUSE supporting the Indictment because Mike McQueary quite CLEARLY testified to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE to the SWIGJ than what the State claimed in their Indictment (which relied on the SWIGJ and Presentment). Mike McQueary DEFACTO told the 30th SWIGJ the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the State claims was their "Probable Cause" - i.e., MM told the 30th SWIGJ that he DID NOT ACTUALLY "SEE" OR "EYEWITNESS" an overt sex act of any kind, let alone anal-intercourse! The State lied both in the Presentment and Indictments that ANYONE ever told them they EYEWITNESSED and SAW Sandusky engaged in a sex act with the child, because Mike McQueary DEFACTO told the 30th SWIGJ the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE (i.e., he DID NOT factually see or eyewitness such a thing)!!! So the State LIED about having an "EYEWITNESS" to the most serious criminal Indictment and charge.......and not only did they LIE about having an EYEWITNESS as "probable cause" for the charge, but that is the ONLY third-party EYEWITNESS they had for any of the charges they brought (all of the other charges were supported by prosecution "victims" exclusively with no third-party verification or witnessing!).

You're full of $hit that "Pure Speculation" qualifies as "EYEWITNESS" testimony or has any evidentiary value whatsoever under Pennsylvania Judiciary Criminal Law.

Given the clear speculative nature of the prosecution-led questioning, Sandusky's defense should have moved to STRIKE all the statements (again, you can't "think you see something" - you can only SEE SOMETHING and SWEAR TO IT as an EYEWITNESS). The fact that Sandusky's awful defense did not object to the clear speculation that took place via the prosecutor-led bull$hit questioning session is just another reason that should be brought up in Sandusky's PCRA Hearings!

 

[UncleLar]

Given the clear speculative nature of the prosecution-led questioning, Sandusky's defense should have moved to STRIKE all the statements (again, you can't "think you see something" - you can only SEE SOMETHING and SWEAR TO IT as an EYEWITNESS). The fact that Sandusky's awful defense did not object to the clear speculation that took place via the prosecutor-led bull$hit questioning session is just another reason that should be brought up in Sandusky's PCRA Hearings!

You can also hear something and testify to it.

Despite your argument differently, I'm not trying to argue whether the prosecution was right or wrong in what they did with McQueary's testimony. The only thing I'm trying to do is make people like yourself accurately represent what McQueary testified to. Too many people put words in his mouth that he has never said.

 

[UncleLar]

Considering all of this testimony it seem likely that MM thought it could be sexual assault but he couldn't be sure. Don't you agree?

If MM was unsure, wouldn't it be likely that he used soft language when reporting to Curley & Shultz? What are the chances that he told them it was anal rape when he didn't actually witness such a thing and never told his father or Dranov that he witnessed such a thing?

He's testified to exactly both of those. He's admitted he couldn't be 100% sure because he didn't see the actual penetration. He's also stated that he didn't use explicit language when discussing the incident with Curley and Schultz.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You can also hear something and testify to it.

Saying you heard something has ZERO EVIDENTIARY VALUE and is not EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY regarding WITNESSING A CRIME you freaking bozo! ZERO EVIDENTIARY VALUE and not sufficient PROBABLE CAUSE to support the Indictment that the corrupt PA Corbutt-led OAG used to issue the Indictment! McQueary saying he THOUGHT the sounds were being created by parties having sex in the shower without ACTUALLY seeing what the genesis of the sounds were is SPECULATIVE and NOT "eyewitness testimony"!

If in a murder trial the State calls a witness who heard a gunshot from their apartment, but did not actually see the gun being fired and then when they look out the window, they see a man walking down the sidewalk, the State can not claim this party as an "eyewitness" to murder in support of an Indictment against John Doe who was walking down the sidewalk when the party who heard the shot from their apartment looked out the window. If this is the only thing the State has (i.e., a person who heard a gunshot from their apartment, but did not actually EYEWITNESS or SEE the crime), they DO NOT have sufficient probable cause to arrest John Doe on the sidewalk NOR can they label the guy in the apartment who heard noises he thought was a gunshot a "EYEWITNESS" to the crime in support of getting a court to approve their indictment, because that is not an "EYEWITNESS" to the crime you blithering, obfuscating @sshat and it would be a LIE for the Prosecution (i.e, "The State") to label that party an "EYEWITNESS" when they absolutely are no such thing UNDER THE EVIDENCIARY RULES OF THE COURT AND CONSTIUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF "PROBABLE CAUSE"!!!

 

[WeR0206]

Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

What I will point you to is his testimony of December 12, 2011 in the Dauphin County Court. Here's that testimony.

Q: Could you describe exactly what transpired at that point?

A: Looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry was with a boy in the shower. And it appeared that Jerry was directly behing the boy and the boy was up against the wall with his hands up against the wall. Again, that glance or that look may have been a second or two.

I turned back to my locker and, in a very hurriedly and hastened state and shocked, opened by locker, swung the door open, put the shoes in, and then stepped to the right of my locker, to be frank with you, to make sure I saw what I think I saw with my own eyes without the reflection in the mirror

So I stepped a little bit to my right to look directly into the shower room

The testimony went off on a tangent for a bit then came back to this.

Q: You indicated that there was a second time that you looked into the shower?

A: Yes

Q: Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q: Describe - - after looking in the second time, did the position of the individuals change at all.

A: No.

Q: So whay you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.

A: Yes

McQueary then went back to his locker and slammed it. After slamming the locker he then walked back to the shower and looked in again. At this point, according to his testimony, they had separated. But you are the one who invented the part about them being "out of the shower and drying off". That's no where to be found in McQueary's testimony.

That's two looks, one was in the mirror, one was not. where he saw them engage in what he thought was intercourse. So even if you want to argue about the mirror causing depth perception (which it does not), he got a full look at them without looking in the mirror.

Take a look at the following 12/16/11 prelim testimony of MM and tell me if you think it makes any logical sense:

Pg. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over. They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act”.

**Huhhh??? How in the world does that make ANY sense??**

Pg. 68: Roberto asks MM what he told Dr. D, the state objects due to irrelevence and it's of course sustained. (These are perjury charges we're talking about!!)

Pg. 69: Roberto states she wants to hear what MM told Dr. D. to see if it corroborates what MM told TC, there has to be a 2nd witness to corroborate MM's statements. Again, the Judge doesn't agree and the objection is sustained.

Roberto then goes on the record at the bottom of page 69 and says "For the record note my objection, and for the record, I mean, I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony."

Attorney Farrell joins the objection.
===================

So according to MM he was perfectly confident a severe sex act was occurring between JS and a kid, knew right away that the football coach had to be told while at the same time considered calling the police but then decided against it. Riiiiiiiight. That makes perfect logical sense if you are 99.99% sure a kid was getting raped.

 

[bdgan]

He's testified to exactly both of those. He's admitted he couldn't be 100% sure because he didn't see the actual penetration. He's also stated that he didn't use explicit language when discussing the incident with Curley and Schultz.

But he also testified that he made sure they knew it was sexual (vs. horseplay) and that's what got Joe/C/S/S in trouble.

Sp who do we believe? I believe C & S because they say something similar to what John McQueary, Dranov, and Paterno said.

It seems to me you have two choices.

1. MM told C&S more than he told the others. Why would he do that?
2. MM told all of them the same thing which was a watered down version because he was unsure of what he had witnessed. In that case it seems like he subsequently embellished his story in order to cover his own rear end.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

He's testified to exactly both of those. He's admitted he couldn't be 100% sure because he didn't see the actual penetration. He's also stated that he didn't use explicit language when discussing the incident with Curley and Schultz.

Yes, he's admitted that his statements in this regard are pure speculation and not "eyewitness testimony" as the State claimed they would be in their Presentment and Indictment! Additionally, the statements are consistent with MM actually testified to the 30th SWIGJ - i.e., that he DID NOT "eyewitness" or "see" an explicit sex act and the best he could do would be to speculate as to what he "THOUGHT" was possibly going on! This is very clearly PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT because the State claimed that MM told them he "SAW" and "EYEWITNESSED" the crime of "rape" as the "Probable Cause" in support of their Indictment (and they very clearly state this in the SWIGJ Presentment which was presented as the support for the Indictment). The OAG's claim in the SWIGJ Presentment is a DEFACTO LIE and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTION given that Mike McQueary's very own testimony to the 30th SWIGJ, the SWIGJ that he testified to, was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what "The State" claimed in their SWIGJ Presentment and Indictment - i.e., Mike McQueary specifically told the 30th SWIGJ that he DID NOT ACTUALLY EYEWITNESS OR SEE an overt sex act of any kind including the claimed criminal sex act that "The State" claimed he did in their Summary Presentment. IOW, the State's claim in the Presentment and Indictment is COUNTER-FACTUAL to what Mike McQueary ACTUALLY TOLD the SWIGJ he testified to, the 30th SWIGJ!!!

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Point 1: The general public hates Penn State, Joe Paterno, and Penn State Football because of the allegation of "anal rape" in the Penn State shower.

Point 2: jerry sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge in the Penn State shower incident.

What? I thought JVP and the assistant coaches were shower witnesses?

 

[WeR0206]

As far as following up. What in heaven's name suddenly made Mike McQueary this Lone Ranger, Knight in Shining Armor, who was supposed to put Sandusky in jail. That was not his responsibility. He did what he was supposed to do.

Ummm, how about the fact that MM was the one and only witness to the incident? If he felt PSU admins didn't repsond to his report properly he should have, you know, expressed dissatisfaction or said that more needed to be done to one of the admins, but he never did.

When TC followed up with MM a few weeks later he was apparently satisfied with the admin's response and they all went on with their lives until 9 yrs later when MM played revisionist history with OAG investigators.

 

[ChiTownLion]

He certainly could have gone to the police but what he did do was follow university policy at the time. He reported the incident to his superiors which, by the very nature of it being university policy, would put the burden on them to proceed appropriately.

As far as following up. What in heaven's name suddenly made Mike McQueary this Lone Ranger, Knight in Shining Armor, who was supposed to put Sandusky in jail. That was not his responsibility. He did what he was supposed to do.

And your last question is once again, one of those internet rumors that refuses to go away (probably because John Ziegler keeps harping on it claiming that there's evidence but never producing any - of course Ziegler also believes Sandusky is innocent). There is absolutely no evidence that McQueary ever participated in any event that Sandusky's name was attached to save one - a charity football game that McQueary had no idea that Sandusky was part of and which McQueary says he bailed on as quickly as he could once he discovered Sandusky was there. The defense even tried to make a case that McQueary played in a Second Mile event but the director of the event specifically testified that he didn't.

From Henry Lesch's (the director of the Second Mile's golf tournament) cross-examination by the prosecution during the seventh day of the Sandusky trial.

Q: Okay. So we have undated picture, a letter to Mr. McQueary, but not from him with no acknowledgement return and a couple of lists of people who may or may not have played in the golf tournament; is that pretty much it?

A: Yes

Q: Did they reflect anything about who you know who actually played.

A: I would recall people who would have played. Mr. McQueary is not one of them.

There you have it. The tournament director and the defense's own witness says that McQueary didn't play.

fwiw...

 

[GTACSA]

Yes, he's admitted that his statements in this regard are pure speculation and not "eyewitness testimony" as the State claimed they would be in their Presentment and Indictment! Additionally, the statements are consistent with MM actually testified to the 30th SWIGJ - i.e., that he DID NOT "eyewitness" or "see" an explicit sex act and the best he could do would be to speculate as to what he "THOUGHT" was possibly going on! This is very clearly PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT because the State claimed that MM told them he "SAW" and "EYEWITNESSED" the crime of "rape" as the "Probable Cause" in support of their Indictment (and they very clearly state this in the SWIGJ Presentment which was presented as the support for the Indictment). The OAG's claim in the SWIGJ Presentment is a DEFACTO LIE and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTION given that Mike McQueary's very own testimony to the 30th SWIGJ, the SWIGJ that he testified to, was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what "The State" claimed in their SWIGJ Presentment and Indictment - i.e., Mike McQueary specifically told the 30th SWIGJ that he DID NOT ACTUALLY EYEWITNESS OR SEE an overt sex act of any kind including the claimed criminal sex act that "The State" claimed he did in their Summary Presentment. IOW, the State's claim in the Presentment and Indictment is COUNTER-FACTUAL to what Mike McQueary ACTUALLY TOLD the SWIGJ he testified to, the 30th SWIGJ!!!

I'm curious as to your response answering this question: Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

I suspect you can't answer this which means only one thing; you made it up. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. There are many posters who fabricate facts unsupported by the record to reach their own narrative.

 

[biacto]

I'm curious as to your response answering this question: Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

I suspect you can't answer this which means only one thing; you made it up. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. There are many posters who fabricate facts unsupported by the record to reach their own narrative.

Look in the mirror.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

But he also testified that he made sure they knew it was sexual (vs. horseplay) and that's what got Joe/C/S/S in trouble.

Sp who do we believe? I believe C & S because they say something similar to what John McQueary, Dranov, and Paterno said.

It seems to me you have two choices.

1. MM told C&S more than he told the others. Why would he do that?
2. MM told all of them the same thing which was a watered down version because he was unsure of what he had witnessed. In that case it seems like he subsequently embellished his story in order to cover his own rear end.

There is a huge difference between SPECULATING that it might have been sexual in nature (which is what MM would do with everybody he spoke with) and then when asked explicitly, "Is that what you actually saw, Mike?" denying that this is what you actually saw. IOW, MM is the party who identified his own statements as being SPECULATIVE in nature and basically CONJECTURE as to what MIGHT have been going on, this is why the questioners, regardless of who they were, would discount these statements and revert MM back to what he ACTUALLY SAW. When MM would say, "I didn't actually see that, but I was concerned that might have been what was going on......blah, blah, blah", this is why his father and Dr. D recommended that he go the HR route rather than call police, because MM was not an EYEWITNESS to a crime and his speculative statements are not EVIDENTIARY!!! This is especially true in regards to the Perjury Charges - the State is claiming that MM told Curley & Schultz that he SAW and EYEWITNESSED Sandusky having sex with the child. They are not being charged for Perjury for misrepresenting any and all topics that MM might have "speculated" and "conjectured" about, especially when MM had a habit of speculating and conjecturing, but as soon as the questioner would "redirect" back to the specific "speculation" or "conjecture", Mike McQueary would IMMEDIATELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY state something to the effect, "No, that is not what I saw....I cannot say for certain that is what is going on.....". This is clearly bull$hit based on MM's own statements over and over even to the SWIGJ and at trial multiple times under oath - OF COURSE YOU DISCOUNT THE SPECULATION WHEN THE PARTY THEMSELVES DENIES HAVING SEEN THAT WHAT IMMEDIATELY REDIRECTED BACK TO THEIR SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE - i.e., "Is that what you actually saw Mike?" and he denies it!!!

Curley and Schultz claim that Mike McQueary consistently told them he did not SEE, and say he SAW, a sexual act when they questioned him. They testified that he was obtuse with them just like he was with his father, Dr. D and JVP and that he felt it was extremely "inappropriate behavior", but when they attempted to nail down exactly what he meant relative to what MM was speculating about (i.e., what he was willing to absolutely state that he saw), MM did not say that he saw a sexual act of any kind, but would say the diametric opposite and characterize the entire episode as "objectionable", offensive to him and "inappropriate behavior" in MM's opinion. This is not only consistent with the responses that MM gave his father, Dr. D and JVP, but it is also consistent with his sworn testimony to the SWIGJ and multiple courts related to the trials of both JS but also C/S/S. You cannot charge Perjury for parties not being able to accurately catalog all of MM's endless speculations, conjectures and "qualifying statements" as to what he "didn't see", but "thought might have been going on"...... That's nonsense and certainly not something that you can make a Perjury charge stick on!

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I'm curious as to your response answering this question: Please point me to the transcript where McQueary testifies hat he "he walked directly over to the shower area whereupon looking in he saw the two parties out of the shower and toweling-off"

I suspect you can't answer this which means only one thing; you made it up. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. There are many posters who fabricate facts unsupported by the record to reach their own narrative.

BwaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[lionville]

You can also hear something and testify to it.

Despite your argument differently, I'm not trying to argue whether the prosecution was right or wrong in what they did with McQueary's testimony. The only thing I'm trying to do is make people like yourself accurately represent what McQueary testified to. Too many people put words in his mouth that he has never said.

Mike heard a sound and his brain drew a conclusion. Did he hear the sound before he saw JS and the kid, thinking he'd see a player or someone having sex in the shower? Could Mike have expected to see someone having sex and was floored when he saw Jerry and the kid? Could he have drawn the wrong conclusion about the slapping sound before he saw the source of said sound?

Watched an episode of America's funniest videos.l recently. They had 3 people and they played a sound then showed some videos and asked the people to tie the sound to the video. 3 times they did it and not 1 person selected the right video. My point here is sounds can be tied to many sources. Yet Mike is 100% certain the sound he heard was two people having sex but did not have visual confirmation. In his mind there's no other possibility for the source of that noise. He must be a genius.

 

[biacto]

Point 1: The general public hates Penn State, Joe Paterno, and Penn State Football because of the allegation of "anal rape" in the Penn State shower.

Point 2: jerry sandusky was acquitted of the rape charge in the Penn State shower incident.

No, the PiTiots and Public hate Joe because he honestly kicked the crap out of their favorite teams. PiTiots know they're lying, but feel they're getting back at Joe and PSU for decades of ass whippings.

 

[LundyPSU]

well, hopefully the trial happens and others can testify and add some clarity. but as it stands now, Mike's testimony doesn't make sense

 

[simons96]

Mike heard a sound and his brain drew a conclusion. Did he hear the sound before he saw JS and the kid, thinking he'd see a player or someone having sex in the shower? Could Mike have expected to see someone having sex and was floored when he saw Jerry and the kid? Could he have drawn the wrong conclusion about the slapping sound before he saw the source of said sound?

Watched an episode of America's funniest videos.l recently. They had 3 people and they played a sound then showed some videos and asked the people to tie the sound to the video. 3 times they did it and not 1 person selected the right video. My point here is sounds can be tied to many sources. Yet Mike is 100% certain the sound he heard was two people having sex but did not have visual confirmation. In his mind there's no other possibility for the source of that noise. He must be a genius.

two things:

#1 - seriously, Mike heard what he thought were "sex noises" and still went into the locker room? Creeeeeepy

#2 - I visited my parents quite a few years ago and stayed in the guest room below their bedroom. Woke to the sound of heavy repetitive squeaking from above. thought to myself, good for you, dad. but still . . . CREEEEEEEEEEEEPY! then when I went upstairs for breakfast, my mom was carrying down . . . a freshly ironed shirt. DOH! yeah it was the ironing board, not the old man gettin some.

 

[UncleLar]

Yes, he's admitted that his statements in this regard are pure speculation and not "eyewitness testimony" as the State claimed they would be in their Presentment and Indictment! Additionally, the statements are consistent with MM actually testified to the 30th SWIGJ - i.e., that he DID NOT "eyewitness" or "see" an explicit sex act and the best he could do would be to speculate as to what he "THOUGHT" was possibly going on! This is very clearly PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT because the State claimed that MM told them he "SAW" and "EYEWITNESSED" the crime of "rape" as the "Probable Cause" in support of their Indictment (and they very clearly state this in the SWIGJ Presentment which was presented as the support for the Indictment). The OAG's claim in the SWIGJ Presentment is a DEFACTO LIE and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTION given that Mike McQueary's very own testimony to the 30th SWIGJ, the SWIGJ that he testified to, was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what "The State" claimed in their SWIGJ Presentment and Indictment - i.e., Mike McQueary specifically told the 30th SWIGJ that he DID NOT ACTUALLY EYEWITNESS OR SEE an overt sex act of any kind including the claimed criminal sex act that "The State" claimed he did in their Summary Presentment. IOW, the State's claim in the Presentment and Indictment is COUNTER-FACTUAL to what Mike McQueary ACTUALLY TOLD the SWIGJ he testified to, the 30th SWIGJ!!!

Like I've said multiple times before, I don't give two shits about what the state did or didn't do. My only interest is keeping people like you from putting false words in McQueary's mouth. You can continue on with your campaign against the prosecution.

 

[simons96]

Like I've said multiple times before, I don't give two shits about what the state did or didn't do. My only interest is keeping people like you from putting false words in McQueary's mouth. You can continue on with your campaign against the prosecution.

277 likes. you're doing a bang up job, mate

 

[UncleLar]

Curley and Schultz claim that Mike McQueary consistently told them he did not SEE, and say he SAW, a sexual act when they questioned him.

Really. There you go again. Show me the evidence. Point me to the testimony. I'm dying to read where either Curley or Schultz testified McQuery told them he didn't see a sexual act. Your putting in in CAPS or emboldening your claims don't make them any more factual. If Curley and Schultz said such, show me the transcript. Otherwise quit making up testimony that was never made.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Lar, I think we should all be concerned that Jerry was pulling kids out of class with no parental consent. CMHS, TSM and CYS should all be held accountable, but somehow the players there got promotions (ie, Turchetta to Principal) whereas PSU was left to burn.

Nobody ever wants to talk about Aaron Fisher telling Turchetta that he was being abused by Jerry Sandusky and Turchetta telling Fisher to STFU. Guess that's deserving of a promotion? Maybe this is where Roxine should be focusing her attention.

 

[UncleLar]

277 likes. you're doing a bang up job, mate

What world do you live in where you place so much importance on "likes"? I'm not trying to make friends here. I'm perfectly aware that I'm taking a minority unpopular position on this subject. Frankly, I think it's something that someone needed to do and I'm glad to oblige even if no one else "likes" what I'm doing.