Yes, I very much agree with this viewpoint - essentially, IMHO, the prosecutor's asked MM leading questions and to SPECULATE based on his "experience" of the entire event -- NOT SOLELY on what he could testify to based ONLY on what he actually saw! The prosecution knows that the only thing which is permissible evidence in a Court of Law is what MM ACTUALLY SAW and that SPECULATION based on what he heard prior to what he saw is INADMISSIBLE! The defense destroyed this charge by prosecutors with one simple question to MM in the courtroom just as you say - Did you SEE and can you testify that you absolutely SAW sexual contact....?.... to which MM absolutely answered - No, I did not see that. I think that is what was going on, but I cannot say that I de facto saw it. I in fact did not see it - in fact, I never saw below the waist of either party....etc....
IOW, prosecutors routinely asked MM to SPECULATE on what he specifically eyewitnessed via what he was thinking prior to whatever he actually eyewitnessed due to what he had HEARD UPON ENTERING THE FACILITY and continued to hear until shortly before he EYEWITNESSED what he eyewitnessed via a momentary glance in a mirror and then directly looking into the shower area after walking over from his locker. They destroyed their own case and then laughably, and repeatedly, claimed that this was MM "testifying" that he SAW "anal rape", "sodomy" and all the other words the OAG used in the "Presentment Statement of Fact" which they knew all along was complete bull$hit as "speculating" based on what you had HEARD is not admissible evidence in a Court of Law and the OAG damn well knew this!
MM told Dr. Dranov (and his father), immediately following the incident, that he was convinced that people were having sex in the shower from the moment he walked into the facility DUE TO WHAT HE HEARD, NOT WHAT HE SAW. MM had already made up his mind that people were having sex in the shower BEFORE HE SAW ANYTHING - the only thing he didn't know when he went to his locker is who was in the shower. This explains MM's shock-&-horror when he learned who was in the shower via a momentary glimpse in the mirror and then a direct look into the shower area after he walked directly over to see what was going on DESPITE NOT SEEING ANYTHING that he could attest was sexual contact between the parties! (again, he had already decided that this was what was taking place based on what he HEARD, not what he saw). Dr. Dranov told MM multimple times the very night of the incident that police needed to be called, and he needed to make a report, if he saw and EYEWITNESSED a sexual assault, but MM kept telling him not to call police because he only thought that is what was going on based on what he heard, but had not actually eyewitnessed such a thing which is PRECISELY why Dr. Dranov and MM's Father did not call the police - e.g., MM could not make a statement and the accusation that this is what he SAW which is what is required to make the CRIMINAL CHARGE STICK!
Again, the OAG understood this, but went right on polluting the waters by not distinguishing descriptions MM told others based on what he HEARD (SPECULATION and not admissible in a COURT OF LAW) versus what he ACTUALLY SAW and was willing to testify to seeing (otherwise known as giving "eyewitness testimony") which is the only thing that is admissible in a Court of Law. They polluted the waters in regards to their questioning of Dr. Dranov, JM, JP, TC and GS -- when talking to all of these people, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as to what MM "speculated" about based on what he "heard"; the ONLY THING that matters is what MM told these parties as to what he specifically SAW and COULD, AND WOULD, TESTIFY TO HAVING SEEN (again, what is known as "eyewitnessing"). And the RECORD is quite clear on this topic, including what MM actually testified to in a COURT OF LAW -- MM has consistently stated that he did not WITNESS, NOR COULD HE TESTIFY TO SEEING, "anal rape"....."sodomy"......"intercourse"......or "sexual contact" of any kind -- MM also testified that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE he had....this despite the prosecution claiming that MM had told them that he had which is why the wrote the Presentment the way they did. IOW, just as you say, MM's ADMISSIBLE testimony (e.g., testimony as to what he SAW, not what he "heard" or what he "thought based on what he heard and saw", etc....) only points to one party in this entire affair INTENTIONALLY and REPEATED LYING and that would be the OAG, not technically MM or his family (e.g., they only "speculated" that something of a "sexual nature" was taking place, but they were being asked to discuss their INADMISSIBLE "speculations" by the prosecution rather than the prosecution sticking to a discussion of what MM told ANYBODY what he actually SAW and EYEWITNESSED, because according to none other than MM in a Court of Law, the prosecution is BOLD-FACED LYING when they say that MM told them he "saw"...."eyewitnessed".....etc...Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the shower [which they repeatedly claim in their Presentment and Indictments] -- MM flatly stated in a Court of Law that not only had never SEEN any such thing, but that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had [e.g., a clear indictment of the OAG's claim to the contrary that MM had told them that he did "eyewitness" such a thing!]).
