FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
maybe no one "likes" your posts because they are obtuse circle-jerking
no wait, then CR66 and CDW and gmj would still like your posts . . .
None of which ever made it to a courtroom despite Amendola's claims. If you read the courtroom testimony regarding the two Second Mile Golf Tournaments that McQueary supposedly played in and that Amendola said he had evidence in support of, that evidence turned out to be invite lists. No one denies that McQueary was invited to play in them, but he didn't actually play. The director of the tournament specifically stated that he would have known if McQueary had played and he did not. Media story lines are not the same thing as courtroom testimony. No one came forward and testified in court in support of those claims.
Yup. He's not a white knight nor a Lone Ranger super hero. He even testified as such. Just like with Paterno, in hindsight, he wished he had done more. But what he is is one of the very few people who actually took some action as opposed to sitting on it.
Agree. While I may disagree with you, Lar, on certain things, you are correct here.
p
And maybe he wasn't quite so sure when it come time to swear in court.
In this day and age, and I include the mid-2000s in that grouping, with the number of people running around taking selfies and cell phone pictures, it's hard to believe that if any of these events actually took place, i.e. McQueary at a Sandusky camp, or McQueary at a Second Mile Golf Tournament, somebody would have taken a picture of him there. No pictures have surfaced though - and that leads me to believe he's telling the truth when he says he wasn't at any of them.
And maybe he wasn't quite so sure when it come time to swear in court.
In this day and age, and I include the mid-2000s in that grouping, with the number of people running around taking selfies and cell phone pictures, it's hard to believe that if any of these events actually took place, i.e. McQueary at a Sandusky camp, or McQueary at a Second Mile Golf Tournament, somebody would have taken a picture of him there. No pictures have surfaced though - and that leads me to believe he's telling the truth when he says he wasn't at any of them.
Take a look at Mike McQueary's sworn testimony to the 30th SWIGJ at the preliminary hearings for C/S/S and at Sandusky's trial, it is perfectly consistent with what EVERY SINGLE PERSON who spoke with MM after the incident says......MM does a lot of himming and hawwing about "I thought this" and "I thought that".....and as soon as anyone pins him down on his specific speculation or qualified conjecture, he IMMEDIATELY says, "I didn't not see that, so I am not absolutely certain that is what is going on....." or in the case of Dr. Dranov, every time Dr. Dranov would ask him point-blank and try to pin him down on what he actually saw (by saying something like - Mike did you actually see JS molesting the child...?), Mike would start talking about the sounds he heard and blow-off the very pertinent and extremely important question that Dr. Dranov just asked. You are full of it that MM's track-record regarding reflecting what he actually saw, rather than speculating and conjecturing, hasn't been quite consistent regardless of who he was talking to. Everybody found his statements to be quite obtuse as to what he ACTUALLY SAW and EYEWITNESSED and nobody, including the Grand Jurer from the 33rd SWIGJ that he testified to came away believing that he actually witnessed what the OAG claimed he EYEWITNESSED and would testify to EYEWITNESSING in their Presentment and Indictments.
Again, Mike McQueary TESTIFIED UNDER OATH to the SWIGJ and two other PA Courts to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what The State claimed MM, a "State's Witness", would testify to in their Presentment and Indictment!!! Yea, that's some kind of "credibility" and great case for a Perjury Case that claims Mike McQueary told Curley and Schultz he SAW and EYEWITNESSED JS having sexual relations with the child - the Perjury Claim does not claim that Curley and Schultz did a a poor job of recollecting MM's endless speculations and qualified conjectures brainiac! Too funny that you believe testimony to date reflects that MM clearly and consistently told everybody, including Curley and Schultz, that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" JS having sexual relations with the child???
Very amusing that MM blows this perjury case up beyond all recognition when he testified in a PA Court under oath (which he unquestionably did) that HE DID NOT SEE OR EYEWITNESS JS HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE CHILD AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD!!! So according to you, Mike McQueary's very own words and sworn testimony which blow the State's Perjury Case to high heaven (and IN FACT shows the OAG and Prosecution are the liars on this topic) doesn't count as "testimony" according to you? LMFAO, you my friend are a disingenuous PUTZ!!! MM should be defended for his cowardly, self-serving behavior regardless if his disgraceful behavior has UNFAIRLY and DISHONORABLY destroyed the lives of INNOCENT parties such as Tim Curley??? No @sshole, sorry but I don't "pray that way", nor do I have to respect your hypocritical, self-righteous-without-cause @ssholio-ness!
BTW, could you tell me who the State's "corroborating witness" is for MM's statements -- something you ABSOLUTELY are required to have for a Perjury conviction??? There were three people in the room - Tim Curley corroborates Gary Schultz's version of the conversation; Gary Schultz corroborates Tim Curley's version of the conversation and precisely NOBODY corroborates Mike McQueary's version of the conversation - go figure??? IOW genius, the State is the party with the losing hand - no corroborating witness, losing case, especially given that MM's sworn testimony CONTRADICTS their claims of what MM said!
Last edited:
LOL..you are talking about a perfect mirror. Bathroom mirrors, perhaps even foggy, at not perfect mirrors. Secondly, it doubles the length. So if it is 10 feet from MM to the mirror, and then another 30 feet from the mirror into the shower, that would be 40 feet away. In addition, if you've been in the locker/shower area, the mirror area is much brighter than the inside of the shower. So the image would appear to be less vivid, more greyed out. Add in the distance, the distorted images from a large residence grade mirror, potential fog and lighting and you've got a mess.
I suggest you try it out. Go to any setup like that and have someone hold up a sign with six inch black letters on a white sheet of paper. Look at it through a mirror, then look at it directly. The difference will be large.
Perhaps we need to agree to disagree, but Ms. Two is talking about theory. Theory ain't gonna cut it.
At that time, had the janitors cleaned the mirror or the rest of the locker room yet? Wouldn't have winter workouts started? Wouldn't the strength and conditioning staff that run the workouts have lockers in that support staff locker room as well?
And this is where I was going as I have posted previously in other threads on the same topic. His actions over the years seem to indicate it was horseplay, not a sexual assault. MM didn't need to be a lone ranger, b/c he told others it was horseplay or something they interpreted as horseplay from what MM told them.
If MM had witnessed a sexual assault and those he reported it to did nothing (or next to nothing to prevent JS from sexually assaulting others), I don't think it places too much onus that MM would say, wait a minute and inquire why nothing was done, and why JS was still the head of charity involving children. Otherwise, MM is guilty of knowing and doing nothing. He didn't take action that night to prevent what he perceived to be a sexual assault. Reporting it to his superiors in this instance is not enough if he knows no action was taken to stop further abuse. I have given MM the benefit of doubt that it is not the latter. Hopefully we might find out more over time as the lawsuits proceed.
Last edited:
I understand that somebody in their early 20s would be hesitant to go over the heads of his bosses (Joe, Curley, Shultz) by reporting to police. But his dad is another story. He knew Shultz and I would have expected him to call Gary and ask WTF is going on.
Good point. Even his dad JM didn't corroborate MM's version.
From 12/16/11 prelim:
Pg. 145 (Roberto cross examination of JM): Ms. Roberto asks JM:
“Isn’t it your recollection that your son described to Dr. Dranov what happened that evening in the shower as only hearing something in the shower and drawing conclusions about what happened but not seeing anything in the shower?”
Beemer of course immediately objected. Roberto responds by saying that regarding Dr. Dranov section 4902-F requires the Commonwealth, the prosecution, to corroborate Mr. McQueary’s statements. And this witness is the best witness we can think of that would corroborate or not the statements of Mike McQueary.
Beemer responds by saying they are going down a road that’s not relevant (huhhh???). The court notes the objection by Roberto but still sustains the Commonwealth’s objection….what a freaking joke.
Pg. 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM re: the meeting between him, Dranov, and Schultz a few months after the incident):
Q: Do you recall Dr. Dranov disagreeing with your description of what Mike said when you said it to Mr. Schultz?
A: Not disagreeing, at least at that time, no I don’t – I don’t believe he did
Q: Did he add facts to it or correct facts?
A: We’ve had conversations so many times, it’s difficult to put into place what occurred week one, month one, year ten. And so I feel uncomfortable answer that because I don’t – I can’t say it with 100 percent certainty
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
Q: Mike never said that to you at any time?
A: Specifically your question about thrusting?
Q: Yes
A: I never heard the word thrust
=======================
So after reading the above JM's testimony boils down to: JS was taking a late night inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable, which is exactly what CSS/Joe/Dranov/Raykovitz all testified to.
MM is the only person who testified that what was reported by him was definitely sexual/criminal. Everyone else acknowledged there was quite a bit a grey area --probably due to the fact MM couldn't really see anyone's hands/privates so it was impossible for him to know for sure what was going on.
Even in this highly "qualified" and hedged version by JM, he only says that MM "might" have said "sexual in nature" and that "perhaps" he said "sexual in nature", but was only really sure that his son definitely said "inappropriate" in regards to describing JS's behavior. So even JM's comments were speculative in regards to whether MM suggested any of the behavior was "sexual in nature". Interestingly, the one word he absolutely remembers Mike using "inappropriate" behavior is the identical description of how Tim Curley characterized MM's comments and the precise wording Curley used with Jack Raykovitz when he reported the incident outside PSU to TSM's CEO!
McQueary graduated from PSU in 1997 and I believe he RS one year. He played for the Raiders a year or two I believe coming back to PSU as a Graduate Assistant for the 1999-2000 season I believe. Add it all up and he was not in his "early 20s" at the time of the 2/9/2001 incident.
He made up "repressed memory therapy" in Matt Sandusky's case at the very least. It was just therapy.
I've asked for proof that it was actually "repressed memory therapy" in other instances here and got nothing but the usual dismissive responses.
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/on-matt-sandusky-and-the-worst-guy-ive-ever-dealt-with/
Like most people with horrible personalities JZ goes too far. In this case he did so in a way that forced him down a road that no one should ever take. It was a blatant move made in desperate attempt to save his ego.
Seems time to bring out my quarterly post....which has never, ever been contradicted even by the trolls... thanks for the lead in. EVERY SINGLE person, inside and outside PSU, from MM to Dr. D., Mr. M, JVP. C/S/S, the TSM CEO, .... every one of them... EVERY ONE OF THEM... acted 100% consistent with "horseplay"... "uncomfortable"... should be addressed. NONE OF THEM acted consistent with "Sandusky is an evil pedophile, but we need to cover it up". In fact, EVERY ONE OF THEM did the exact opposite of cover it up. MM told people, Mr M and Dr D advised MM to tell people, JVP told MM to tell people, C/S/S told people!!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because noone though it was serious! Which is why the final charges will be dropped. My prediction is either Friday Nov 4, or Tuesday Nov 8, so the charges being dropped can be buried in election coverage. The bad news comes out for max media coverage during the all star break.. the exonerated news gets buried.
OK he was 27. That doesn't change the point I was trying to make. A young guy might be hesitant to go over his bosses heads. But his more experienced dad who knew Shultz personally could have easily questioned the fact that authorities weren't called. IMO he didn't do that because his son didn't tell him he saw sexual assault.
I'm not convinced that charges will be dropped because no judge will want to deal with the backlash. We'll see.
Sandusky Victim Sparks Repressed Memory Concerns
http://www.seeker.com/sandusky-victim-sparks-repressed-memory-concerns-1768851583.html
The repressed memory therapy is an active issue in Sandusky's PCRA. To the best of my knowledge Judge Cleland has not ruled on the request for in-camera review of therapist notes for the acccusers that underwent repressed memory therapy. Michael Gillum is clearly a proponent and the Sandusky filing names v1, v3, v4, v6, and v7 as having received it. "Based on the changing testimony of the accusers, the statements of the accusers before and after trial, and the fact that the accusers have attributed their changes in story and/or coming forward to therapy, there is strong evidence that repressed memories were at issue at trial." I hope that Judge Clleland rules in the Defense's favor.
The filing also states "Matt Sandusky attributed therapy to his coming forward."
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY BRIEF IN CAMERA REVIEW OF THERAPY NOTES.pdf
Believe what you want to believe. I personally don't think that Jeff Pearlman is a very good source to use. I believe that his opinions are biased and are not fact-based. His opinion that Matt is telling the truth because his wife told him to take the money from Penn State and that actual victims often change their stories is very shallow IMO.
I personally believe that Matt Sandusky is the classic case of the charlatan that Ken Laning refers to who opportunistically become part of a CSA story. I say that for the following reasons:
1. Matt Sandusky testified before the Grand Jury that he was never molested by JS
2. Matt Sandusky asked at age 18 to be adopted by the Sandusky family, years after he claims he has been repeatedly molested by JS
3. After JS was arrested, Matt Sandusky went to court against his ex-wife to allow JS access to his minor children
4. His adoptive mother, and all the other 5 Sandusky siblings all believe that Matt was never molested by JS
5. Matt Sandusky claimed that assistant coach Kevin O'Dea wtinessed his abuse in 1988, only problem is that O'Dea didn't come to Penn State until 1990
6. Matt Sandusky claims that his suicide attempt was as a result of the absue he received from JS when in fact it was a joint suicide attempt with his girlfriend at the time because his parents would allow them to live together at the Sandusky house
7. Matt Sandusky's claims that the abuse stopped when he was 15, when he transitioned to v4. Only problem there is an almost 4 year gap from when he turned 15 and when the alleged abuse of v4 started in the Fall of 1997. Eileen Morgan who believes that JS is a pedophile explained the math in the following link:
http://www.statecollege.com/news/co...,1374106/?_ga=1.93089695.388951079.1463682164
If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I suspect that the State will not want use Matt Sandusky as a witness because of all of the impeachment information that could be brought in.
Last edited:
I promise I will read and respond to this as soon as I get a chance.
Long day with my 3 year old son and I need some down time tonight. This is too seriously a topic. I hope you understand, no disrespect intended.
No disrespect taken. Take your time. I agree this is a serious and important topic and I don't think it is going away any time soon.
I hope you were able to spend some quality time with your son.
Matt told cops that the abuse didn't go beyond touching/fondling but he told Oprah that he was forced into oral sex and that Jerry attempted to penetrate him
He also told the cops that the abuse ended when he was 15 but he told Oprah that he was abused until the suicide attempt (which happened when he was 17)
He also told the cops that the abuse ended when he was 15 but he told Oprah that he was abused until the suicide attempt (which happened when he was 17)
No one lies to Oprah, so that must be true.
But if you're looking into a mirror from...say...20 ft. away, at a reflection another 20 ft. away, the image you see is effectively 40 ft. away. Correct?
Again I don't give two hoots about what the state is required to have as corroboration. I am only interested challenging people like yourself who are out there putting words in other people's mouths.
You claimed that Curley and Schultz said McQueary "consistently told them he did not SEE, and say he SAW, a sexual act when they questioned him."
I want you to tell me where I can find that testimony. I say you can't because it doesn't exist. It's something that you are making up.
Last edited:
Correct. And the actual distance could be almost as far. Besides, I'm not sure what the big deal is about the mirror since McQueary testified that once he looked into the mirror he also stepped aside and looked directly into the shower and saw the exact same thing.
No it isn't - you are the one making up bull$hit. Both Curley and Schultz have testified that what MM expressed was that he felt JS's behavior was "inappropriate" and offensive - they absolutely have stated that MM never described seeing or witnessing actions by Sandusky of an overt sexual nature. That is what the entire Perjury Charge is about Einstein (i.e., the State says that MM explicitly told Curley and Schultz that what he saw and witnessed was of an explicit sexual nature and both Curley and Schultz say that is absolutely not true). By the way, MM testified in court under oath that he did not actually see or definitively witness an explicit sexual act and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD -- anyone presumably includes Curley and Schultz! So that is defacto and explicit TESTIMONY from MM under oath in a court of law stating that he never told Curley or Schultz (or "anyone" for that matter) that he saw a sexual act. So there you go.
Hooray. You've finally started focusing on what people have actually testified to rather than making things up.
Your quote that I took exception to was that McQueary "consistently told them he did not SEE, and say he SAW, a sexual act when they questioned him."
There is a world of difference between saying that "McQueary never told Curley or Schutz that he saw a sexual act" and saying that "McQueary told them he never saw a sexual act"
Mike did testify that he did see the same thing because he didn't want to trust the mirror
