I wanted to post some of my thoughts on memory issues (mostly my own) & it is perhaps best (maybe I mean easiest) to share my side of a conversation I had with some folks last night.
The conversation is centered around the whole McQueary saying that Eshbach told him she was going to leak the charges thing. If you can get past my opinions on the matter, I'd be interested in others' thoughts & comments on my disussion of memory issues (otherwise this thread will just be a whole lot of back and forth that's already been covered elsewhere).
My side of a conversation last night, 4/4/2017:
---
I personally think this whole leak thing is a red herring. I think McQueary misspoke. He previously testified at his civil trial about being told that the arrests were pending, to include Curley & Schultz, that he told Ganter, and this was about a week before. And he also testified that Eshbach called him to let him know the charges got leaked on Friday 11/4/11, that some screw-up happened, not that she was going to leak the charges.
Unfortunately, I can't really refute that McQueary might not have misspoken. (Sorry for the double negative there, but that's the only way I can be precise)
Anyway, I also look at it this way. What purpose did the leaking of charges on the docket sheet actually serve?
Remember - it wasn't the Presentment that was leaked. Linda Kelly formally released that the next morning after Sandusky was in custody (sealing orders are only in effect until the subject is arrested/arraigned). And the media didn't really freak out in force until two days later, after the Monday press conference.
Again, what purpose did the leak of the charges on Friday actually serve?
What do you guys think?
---
But I confess, I was listening to that testimony, same as Maribeth, and when I heard "leak" I didn't interpret that as Eshbach telling McQueary she was going to leak. He was obviously misspeaking when compared to his civil trial testimony, which I'd already read, just a few weeks ago.
I was listening to that testimony through my own filter, and my own bias.
I started to write up some thoughts on this the day after the trial ended, but I never really finished it. Anyway, here is what I wrote up on 3/24:
---
Anyway, the bigger point of sharing that is less on whether there was an intentional leak, but more so on how we interpret & process information we receive, and that it's always interpreted through own individual filters and biases.
And I'm talking about stuff that is really only days or weeks old to me.
Now think about extending all that out to something 10, 11 or even 16 years ago.
---
This kinda leads me to another question - if Eshbach did intend to have that leak out by design, why would she tell McQueary she going to leak it vs. the heads up version he talked more about at his civil trial?
---
I'll expect we'll all hold whatever our opinions are on something like this. Can't really prove it one way or the other. But at least you've got my thoughts on the matter.
FYI - I am far more positive someone was illegally leaking stuff to Ganim for her 3/31/2011 article. But yet again, I can't really prove the case one way or the other. All circumstantial. And I could argue either side.
---
I sat next to Maribeth that day. And the next morning, after hearing what she posted, I asked what she "heard". When she explained, I told her I didn't "hear" that (FYI - Wendy didn't "hear" it either), and I explained it didn't agree with McQueary civil trial testimony, which I had read just a few weeks earlier. I figured he misspoke.
Then I thought - we'll have to check the transcripts.
And, even now after seeing that he clearly said Eshbach told him there was going to be a leak, I still think he misspoke.
I scratch my head about all this. And then I wonder what did Curley & Schultz "hear" from Paterno first. What did they talk about. And what did they "hear" from Mike. Which isn't at all the same filter and bias that McQueary operates under when he talks about what he "made clear" to them.
---
And for my DM of the evening, I'll leave you with the quote I used to have on my twitter bio & the one I have there now:
Regardless of intelligence & education; despite common sense & evidence to the contrary; adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe. -Ken Lanning
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
---
Oops, I meant to say, "my last DM of the evening", not "my DM of the evening"
Good night fellas!
The conversation is centered around the whole McQueary saying that Eshbach told him she was going to leak the charges thing. If you can get past my opinions on the matter, I'd be interested in others' thoughts & comments on my disussion of memory issues (otherwise this thread will just be a whole lot of back and forth that's already been covered elsewhere).
My side of a conversation last night, 4/4/2017:
---
I personally think this whole leak thing is a red herring. I think McQueary misspoke. He previously testified at his civil trial about being told that the arrests were pending, to include Curley & Schultz, that he told Ganter, and this was about a week before. And he also testified that Eshbach called him to let him know the charges got leaked on Friday 11/4/11, that some screw-up happened, not that she was going to leak the charges.
Unfortunately, I can't really refute that McQueary might not have misspoken. (Sorry for the double negative there, but that's the only way I can be precise)
Anyway, I also look at it this way. What purpose did the leaking of charges on the docket sheet actually serve?
Remember - it wasn't the Presentment that was leaked. Linda Kelly formally released that the next morning after Sandusky was in custody (sealing orders are only in effect until the subject is arrested/arraigned). And the media didn't really freak out in force until two days later, after the Monday press conference.
Again, what purpose did the leak of the charges on Friday actually serve?
What do you guys think?
---
But I confess, I was listening to that testimony, same as Maribeth, and when I heard "leak" I didn't interpret that as Eshbach telling McQueary she was going to leak. He was obviously misspeaking when compared to his civil trial testimony, which I'd already read, just a few weeks ago.
I was listening to that testimony through my own filter, and my own bias.
I started to write up some thoughts on this the day after the trial ended, but I never really finished it. Anyway, here is what I wrote up on 3/24:
I want to talk about memory issues. Specifically, my own. I attended the Spanier trial Tuesday through Thursday. I heard all the witnesses. I took notes.
I was telling people after the first day, I do not trust my memory enough to recall everything that was said. And I know my notes don't capture everything, even though I have 37 pages of notes. I also can recall telling people I can't wait to get the transcripts so I can get everything clear in my head.
Here's the thing. I have not attended any court session before this week. But I've read a lot of transcripts. And I go back to them often when I'm not certain in my memory. (Folks that are familiar with my posts know that I prefer to be accurate and include direct excerpts and links.)
Prior to this week, I had read 100% of all publicly available testimony transcripts, in this whole scandal, for each of the 15 witnesses (to be clear, Raykovitz had no prior testimony that was public; all others did). Therefore I heard the testimony this week with my own filter. My focus was tuned to whether or not what I heard agreed with what I already knew (or thought I knew) from transcripts.
---
I was selected as a juror in a trial early last year. As things started, I took out my notebook and started making notes. The judge stopped me. He said I wasn't allowed to take notes. There's a rule that notes aren't permitted when a trial is expected to last less than two days.
In the trial this week the Judge allowed the jurors to take notes.
He also had specific direction with regard to notes in his instructions to the jurors prior to sending them to deliberate.
But before I say more about that, I don't believe he the jury gets any transcripts of testimony. They are supposed to rely on their memory. However, they can specifically request to hear a reading of testimony (which I think they've already done).
I'm going to try to characterize what the judge instructed the jury, since it rang true with what I had already been thinking about with respect to my own notes and own memory. The judge instructed the jury they had to rely on their memory. He said they could supplement their memory with their notes; however, their notes were not a substitute for their memory since sometimes words can written down wrong.
Ironically, I did not take notes of the judge's instructions. I had to double-check my notes to be sure. So the prior paragraph is purely from memory.
---
I sat next to Maribeth on Tuesday when MM testified. We were both listening intently and taking a lot of notes.
Here's a message I received late Tuesday: McQ testified that OAG called him and told him they were about to leak presentment.
My response, at 11:33pm was: "That detail was made public at McQ's trial in October. His response was to call Ganter to warn Curley." And then I sent images of transcripts from 10/21/2016 morning session, p.68 and 69.
Having just copied that message over now, I totally missed that the message said "about to leak the presentment." It didn't register at all when I read it. That's not what I heard during MM's testimony. I was applying my own filter.
The filter I used was the transcript pages I sent.
I was telling people after the first day, I do not trust my memory enough to recall everything that was said. And I know my notes don't capture everything, even though I have 37 pages of notes. I also can recall telling people I can't wait to get the transcripts so I can get everything clear in my head.
Here's the thing. I have not attended any court session before this week. But I've read a lot of transcripts. And I go back to them often when I'm not certain in my memory. (Folks that are familiar with my posts know that I prefer to be accurate and include direct excerpts and links.)
Prior to this week, I had read 100% of all publicly available testimony transcripts, in this whole scandal, for each of the 15 witnesses (to be clear, Raykovitz had no prior testimony that was public; all others did). Therefore I heard the testimony this week with my own filter. My focus was tuned to whether or not what I heard agreed with what I already knew (or thought I knew) from transcripts.
---
I was selected as a juror in a trial early last year. As things started, I took out my notebook and started making notes. The judge stopped me. He said I wasn't allowed to take notes. There's a rule that notes aren't permitted when a trial is expected to last less than two days.
In the trial this week the Judge allowed the jurors to take notes.
He also had specific direction with regard to notes in his instructions to the jurors prior to sending them to deliberate.
But before I say more about that, I don't believe he the jury gets any transcripts of testimony. They are supposed to rely on their memory. However, they can specifically request to hear a reading of testimony (which I think they've already done).
I'm going to try to characterize what the judge instructed the jury, since it rang true with what I had already been thinking about with respect to my own notes and own memory. The judge instructed the jury they had to rely on their memory. He said they could supplement their memory with their notes; however, their notes were not a substitute for their memory since sometimes words can written down wrong.
Ironically, I did not take notes of the judge's instructions. I had to double-check my notes to be sure. So the prior paragraph is purely from memory.
---
I sat next to Maribeth on Tuesday when MM testified. We were both listening intently and taking a lot of notes.
Here's a message I received late Tuesday: McQ testified that OAG called him and told him they were about to leak presentment.
My response, at 11:33pm was: "That detail was made public at McQ's trial in October. His response was to call Ganter to warn Curley." And then I sent images of transcripts from 10/21/2016 morning session, p.68 and 69.
Having just copied that message over now, I totally missed that the message said "about to leak the presentment." It didn't register at all when I read it. That's not what I heard during MM's testimony. I was applying my own filter.
The filter I used was the transcript pages I sent.
---
Anyway, the bigger point of sharing that is less on whether there was an intentional leak, but more so on how we interpret & process information we receive, and that it's always interpreted through own individual filters and biases.
And I'm talking about stuff that is really only days or weeks old to me.
Now think about extending all that out to something 10, 11 or even 16 years ago.
---
This kinda leads me to another question - if Eshbach did intend to have that leak out by design, why would she tell McQueary she going to leak it vs. the heads up version he talked more about at his civil trial?
---
I'll expect we'll all hold whatever our opinions are on something like this. Can't really prove it one way or the other. But at least you've got my thoughts on the matter.
FYI - I am far more positive someone was illegally leaking stuff to Ganim for her 3/31/2011 article. But yet again, I can't really prove the case one way or the other. All circumstantial. And I could argue either side.
---
I sat next to Maribeth that day. And the next morning, after hearing what she posted, I asked what she "heard". When she explained, I told her I didn't "hear" that (FYI - Wendy didn't "hear" it either), and I explained it didn't agree with McQueary civil trial testimony, which I had read just a few weeks earlier. I figured he misspoke.
Then I thought - we'll have to check the transcripts.
And, even now after seeing that he clearly said Eshbach told him there was going to be a leak, I still think he misspoke.
I scratch my head about all this. And then I wonder what did Curley & Schultz "hear" from Paterno first. What did they talk about. And what did they "hear" from Mike. Which isn't at all the same filter and bias that McQueary operates under when he talks about what he "made clear" to them.
---
And for my DM of the evening, I'll leave you with the quote I used to have on my twitter bio & the one I have there now:
Regardless of intelligence & education; despite common sense & evidence to the contrary; adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe. -Ken Lanning
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
---
Oops, I meant to say, "my last DM of the evening", not "my DM of the evening"
Good night fellas!
