He said he looked directly, saw the same thing. Then went back to his locker, slammed it, and then saw them separated.
FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
To be accurate, Matt Sandusky had a case of re-positioned memory. Going with the "flow" is easy if you have no conscience and a 3 million dollar incentive. I admit not knowing the circumstances surrounding many of the accuser / claimants / victims. It is likely Jerry deserved to be convicted on some if not many of the counts. The representation he got, the kangaroo court(a highlight being the crying janitor) and the incredibly mishandled PSU settlements, give me a real case of skepticism. There is also the curious case of AM. Why would an attorney have to force a legitimate victim of a crime to go into hiding?It makes be believe that Shubin told him that he would never have to explain anything, but just cash the check.
He also said that he was no longer hearing the "slapping sounds" that he had heard when he first walked in.....that neither Sandusky or the child were making any vocalizations of any kind.....and neither of them were really moving much as far as he could tell. So if their activity was creating the noise that MM originally heard and they were still engaged in the same activity, why did MM testify that he no longer was hearing the noise when he looked into the shower and saw their body positioning? MM's testimony of very little movement, no vocalizations and hearing no noise whatsoever is not consistent - given the size/mass differential we're talking about here, you would see tremendous amounts of movement (nor is the body positioning consistent given that Sandusky was supposedly two-feet taller than the child). Lastly he testified that the child did not appear to be in distress when he looked in or when he walked over after slamming his locker.....
There are tons of inconsistencies in the story -- why would someone go back to their locker to close it rather than run to the aid of the child if you were convinced of what MM says he was convinced of? Additionally, MM has given different versions of what happened when he went in the locker-room and sequence of events upon entering the locker-room. One of his versions included the child sticking his head out of the shower, looking at MM and then a hand pulled the child back into the shower area, etc......
Like I have said many times before, what Mike described seeing/hearing is not consistent with what he believed was happening. Physically impossible
Wendy linked this article from her twitter account. Could be very relevant in this case.
"Perjured testimony such as that of Jones' accuser is rampant in courts across the country, yet rarely prosecuted, legal observers say. A registry of exonerations in the U.S. by the University of Michigan Law School found perjury or false accusations were factors in more than half of the nearly 1,900 wrongful convictions the registry has tracked since 1989."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7122...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
"Perjured testimony such as that of Jones' accuser is rampant in courts across the country, yet rarely prosecuted, legal observers say. A registry of exonerations in the U.S. by the University of Michigan Law School found perjury or false accusations were factors in more than half of the nearly 1,900 wrongful convictions the registry has tracked since 1989."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7122...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
Wrong.
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 what you observed at first -- your first look, when you looked a second time, that was continuing.
A: Yes
The first time was through the mirror, he then stepped to the side and looked directly into the shower and nothing had changes. It was at that point that he turned and slammed his locker. When he looked the third time, they were separated.
MM said the kid ran around and wasn't in distress. IMO that eliminates anal intercourse as a possibility. I'm pretty sure a young boy would be distressed if an adult man raped him. He would probably even cry for help.
Remaining possibilities are horseplay, rubbing up against the kid, or touching. MM says he saw JS standing behind the kid against the wall. It would be difficult for him to tell exactly what was going on. It makes sense that MM would have used soft language in his report because he didn't actually see anything sexual.
If he thought anal intercourse he was wrong. If he thought rubbing or touching he could have been correct but he didn't actually see that. It makes sense that MM had a legitimate concern. It also makes sense that he wasn't sure about what he saw and he didn't want to make a false accusation when talking to dad, Dranov, Joe, C, & S.
Agreed, but it also depends upon which version of events you're talking about, because MM has given more than one version of events which are "incompatible" with one another. As I have said all along, MM is his own worst enemy in regards to "credibility" and "trustworthiness" which is what makes the states claims that he is their "star witness" for not only JS charges but also the C/S/S charges comical - especially the Perjury Charges.
If this wasn't the first time that they had engaged in it and they was good and soaped up, then it was certainly a possibility.
Really? Please copy/paste and/or link to said incompatible statements.
I completely disagree. Besides, you would still have to explain the logistical difficulty associated with an adult doing that to a much shorter boy while standing.
I liked the way the Sandusky lawyer when asked if he thought all the accusers lied said that some of the accuser testimony was factually inaccurate. Similarly to the case that Mike McQueary did not witness a sexual act, the case that v2 is AM is getting stronger as time moves forward and a clearer understanding of what happened is learned. I wholeheartedly agree that Jerry was convicted in a kangaroo court replete with ineffective counsel and prosecutorial shenaningans. It is a textbook case of an unfair trial. The Penn State BOT reaction is a cautionary tale of not what to do in a time of crisis.
Regarding the guilt of Jerry Sandusky, I believe he is at least guilty of being naive and not that smart for putting himself in an position where he would be vunerable on accusations regarding harming a minor that was in his care. IMO, the jury is still out on whether or not that he was attracted sexually to minors and if he has any sexual intent in his intereactions with them. On the other hand, I don't believe there is very strong evidence at all that Jerry engaged in sexual activity with any of the accusers. My understand is that there is substantial impeachment evidence, some more than others, with all accusers who testified at trial that they had engaged in sexual acts such as OS or AS with Sandusky.
Folks have already laid it out for you numerous times. Check out my posts in this very thread that explain how his OAG statement/GJ testimony is incompatible with his later testimony at 12/16/11 prelim and everyone's actions at the time.
Also check out this MM credibility chart for a good breakdown of how MM's story changed over time
The problem with Lar is that he seems to be focusing on particular testimony and not considering all of the other evidence outside of certain court testimonies that have been gathered by Ray, Eileen and others. That is how we wind up in these circle jerks in these threads.
Someone points out later testimony and Lar and others point to previous testimony. Someone points out multiple sources say MM attended Sandusky events (in this case me, which is in Eileen's chart and IIRC even PSUDukie says he did but b/c he believed TSM was doing good work), and Lar picks out testimony from one person refuting it. And round and round we go.
Someone points out later testimony and Lar and others point to previous testimony. Someone points out multiple sources say MM attended Sandusky events (in this case me, which is in Eileen's chart and IIRC even PSUDukie says he did but b/c he believed TSM was doing good work), and Lar picks out testimony from one person refuting it. And round and round we go.
Last edited:
- AM is either V2 or else PSU paid $millions for nothing.
- JS is certainly guilty of poor judgement. A person with any sense would have stayed far away from kids in a shower after the 1998 investigation.
- I think JS is a pedophile (sexual desires for kids) and a child molester (acts upon his desires). Otherwise he would have stayed away from kids in showers after 1998. I am not convinced that he went so far as anal intercourse and possibly not even oral sex. Just my opinion based on the evidence.
- I think as many as half of the alleged victims receiving payouts were never molested, or at least nothing more than light touching or horseplay. But free $millions bring out lots of lawyers willing to work on contingency.
- I agree that JS got poor representation. Look how long it's taken the C/S/S trials. Good lawyers would have run up any roadblock possible to delay things as long as possible.
- I'm sure that MM witnessed something that disturbed him but I don't think he saw enough to be sure exactly what was going on. I think he gave a soft report for that reason but started embellishing his story later when pressed by the AG and others for why he hadn't done more to intervene.
- I think that PSU administrators are guilty of failing to document MM's report. You've got to document these things even if you don't think it was outright sexual abuse. Curley saying he thinks it was reported to CYS but can't prove it is ridiculous.
- I think the administrators failed to appreciate the magnitude of MM's report because it was a soft report and they knew about Jerry's history of horsing around. But I do not think there was any coverup attempt in order to protect football. That's absurd.
Lar thinks MM is being treated badly for being a whistle blower. I disagree. I think MM should be commended for reporting this. I think MM is being treated badly because he embellished his story after coming under pressure and in the process brought a lot of unfair scrutiny to the PSU community.
That said I respect Lar's opinions. He draws his conclusions based on the facts. He's not like most of the haters that draw their conclusions from emotion and screw the facts.
The GJ version never mentioned slamming his locker and then going to the shower entrance and seeing them face to face with eye contact. He bailed as fast as he could, according to what he told the GJ.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/10/smss-exclusive-we-have-pictures.html
Last edited:
.
The problem is that are no "facts." There is no physical evidence. What we have are embellishments at best and he said, he said. If there were established "facts," we would not have another thread rehashing about what someone said, what he meant by what he said, what he did or did not see, and what are the motivations of so and so.
I need a break from all of this and eagerly await MM's testimony as part of his lawsuit, but I doubt it gets that far. Dukie has urged to wait for the full story. Fair enough, but at this time, MM appears to have been his own worst enemy just like Ryan Lochte.
Last edited:
No doubt, none of MM's multiple accounts including his original statement to police, his SWIGJ Testimony, or his trial testimony are consistent with each other - they are incremental and hedge certain things that MM later claimed he did to make himself look better, but were not included in his earlier versions. Here is a LINK TO AN ARTICLE ON THE TOPIC.
What I don't get is how investigators could have absolutely NO clue who Vic. 2 is.....we know they had access to JS's emails, texts, and phone records. Why can't they check to see who he was in contact with around the same time as the McQueary incident?
I don't believe his lawsuit has anything to do with his GJ testimony or testimony at the JS trial, so we won't need to worry about that until the C/S/S trials start.
I need a break, too, good thing the season starts this week.
Ummmmm, all investigators would have had to do is call TSM - Sandusky told TSM who V2 was. In fact, according to Sandusky, he was at an out-of-town TSM event with V2 earlier in the day on 2/9/2011 and that he and V2 went to Lasch for a TSM-sponsored "Friends Fitness" workout upon returning to State College on the evening of 2/9/2011 after returning from the out-of-town TSM presentation earlier in the day on 2/9/2011. Sandusky claims he reported all of this information to TSM contemporaneous to the 2/9/2011 Incident, so the notion that the "investigators" wouldn't have known all this information would only be possible if they didn't want to know it and pulled a "Three Blind Monkeys" routine in regards to TSM and V2, who Sandusky says he told TSM was V2 at the time of the incident and PSU's reporting of the incident to TSM.
Some very salient points. Your criticism of Curley and or Schultz's failure to document McQueary's report is accurate. I have long contended that both Gary and Tim proceeded with some trepidation considering the eye witness account was less than definitive in nature. The reason? Sandusky had very solid support on the Board of Trustees. The same individuals that flexed their muscles to ensure Emeritus Status for JS would be cranky if they felt he was being treated disrespectfully. Perhaps the same reason Tom Harmon filed the 98 report deceptively.
Obviously, they could
They could have done that 8 years ago
They - obviously - willfully and intentionally failed to do so
Why?
(That's a rhetorical.....I think we all know why)
I agree with most of what you said with the exception of whether or not JS is a pedophile and had sexual desires kor kids and acted on those desires. I don't think we can make any conclusions from a patently unfair trial. I will await a new fair trial before I make my judgment, but I am not holding my breath for a new trial.
I am not sure that Curley and Schultz should have done any additional reporting beyond CYS and TSM if it was just horseplay.
Even school districts have something called an "incident report." It didn't have to be processed by LE or CYS, just a university document with McQueary's John Hancock would have saved everyone....IMO.
And Schultz testified he believed it was. The onus here is on others to prove it wasn't. Good luck with that.
That's what Shultz said but he couldn't say who reported it and CYS has no such record. My guess is that it was never reported. Wouldn't the person that reported it remember doing so?
Doesn't matter. Prove that it wasn't. Ray has been all over this issue. Check out his blog.
"....My guess is that it was never reported. Wouldn't the person that reported it remember doing so?..."
Here is the core component of this FRAUD!
The State of PA overtly mis-stated testimony, "spun" that testimony from conjecture to negative "FACT" and then manufactured a "Story" which it engineered to appear to the public as "Criminal" based upon a speculative NON-EVENT. This "event" was then "backfilled" with manufactured speculation and tainted (coached) testimony . EVERY SINGLE POINT used to "convict" anyone in this matter is based on "guessing" and conjecture.
Let me give you some facts....this entire publicly accepted "Scandal" by Paterno and Penn State could not be sold to the public UNLESS there was collusion between (1) PA Government - Corbett as ringleader, (2) OGBOT members to support the guilt of Penn State "...why ELSE would they fire Paterno..., (3) Corbett's hand-picked "Liar for Hire" Freeh and (4) a Media-fed Feeding Frenzy promoting the destruction of "...Paterno's Legacy...".
REALITY CHECK - - - TOO MUCH MACHINING OF the key parts and players of this "Story" for this to what the public believes for this to be the truth.
Remember....everything you know about all of this for 5 years is based on ONLY what the State of PA has allowed to be released. 5 years later OGBOT & OAG are STILL fighting to keep critical and credible information HIDDEN (Why else use a Grand Jury???)
In short - this is a crime which the state of PA has controlled all information from day one.....and it is an abuse of Core American Justice ONLY based upon speculation and guessing.
Huh?
The prosecution has to prove that the administrators had an obligation to report, that they were aware of sexual abuse, and that they failed to report.
- I'm not sure about their obligation to report. I've read that this requirement only applies to people who come in regular contract with children.
- I'm also unsure that MM told them about sexual abuse.
- CYS is going to testify that they have no record of receiving a report.
Sorry legion but I don't think that the BOT conspired with Corbett, other state officials, Freeh, and the media any more than Joe conspired with C/S/S, assistant coaches, and players.
I believe that MM gave a watered down account and the administrators underestimated the severity of JS's actions. I believe that the BOT panicked and overreacted by firing Joe, Spanier, etc. I think their overreaction was partially to cover their own rear ends (they should have known too and many were involved with TSM). I think others cooperated because of personal vendettas (Surma's nephew, Corbett vs. Spanier, people thinking Joe had become too powerful).
I think it was a "perfect storm", but I don't believe in all of these conspiracies.
Your argument rests on that CSS were mandated reporters and statute of limitations did not run out and were told that sexual abuse occurred. Both are unlikely to hold any water as evidenced in recent filings and problems with MM's evolving testimony. Most likely charges will be tossed by judge or dropped by AG office.
Assuming they are deemed mandated reporters and jury buys what MM is peddling, another he said, she said. CYS will not be able to prove they didn't report it. Onus still on prosecution to prove that no one did report it. Schultz doesn't have to prove he did. Good luck with that. By the way, AG may have exonerated Curley and perhaps Spanier by saying Schultz was police. Thus, it was reported to police.
Last edited:
Oh good Lord
This thread is making the "TOS" circle-jerks look like MENSA meetings
Truly
Please read what I wrote. I am not arguing that C&S are guilty. I agreed that they might be found not guilty because they were not mandatory reporters or because MM only told them about inappropriate horseplay.
I merely said that they won't be found not guilty because they think somebody might have reported to CYS. That defense is too easy. Everybody could say that.
If we are playing this game then what happens if Schultz says he did or to the best of recollection it was. And CYS says we can't say if it was reported or not reported. And the defense starts going into all the problems with CYS reporting. Game over.
Auditor General DePasquale Says Children’s Lives Being Put at Risk Because Nearly 42,000 Calls to Child Abuse Hotline Unanswered
Nearly one-third of all calls received in 2014 and 2015 were not tracked or documented, and
• Supervisors monitored an extremely small number of calls — only 7, or 0.005 percent — in 2015.
Last edited:
