While I will wait for the final transcripts to be sure, I am told a very different set of events from someone who sat with you during the trial.
1. As part of his plea deal Tim told the OAG on 3/17/2017 that Graham was part of the plan they developed on 2/25/01 but just before that in the trial Tim told the court that he wasn't sure if Graham was part of the plan.
That seems like a pretty big deal when the trial is about whether Graham did or did not do anything as part of the incident. Tim tells the OAG that he was involved in the plan, then he changes his mind on the stand in front of the jury.
2. On cross Schultz admitted to Silver that on 3/8/2017 that he had made a statemtent saying that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy. Silver further asked if this was the first time he made such a statement to which Schultz replied correct.
Another pretty big deal. People have spent years trying to downplay what Mike said he saw, and now Gary says that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy?
I would really like to see the transcripts to see what the actual statements were, along with a comparison to the plea hearing transcripts. Either way those are both very relevant to the case.
I know you have excuses for why these aren't big deals, so like I said, keep living the dream Linda.
Instead of hyperventilating about C/S, people who may have made pleas under extortion type circumstances, its easier to look at the testimony from folks who weren't getting pressured by the corrupt OAG, folks such as JM and Dr. D. Neither one of them corrorborated MM's "sexual shower" story. In fact Dr. D's version didnt include anything at all about MM actually looking in the shower and seeing a hug from behind, etc.. All MM reported to him was the sounds, a kid peaking around the corner, then JS and the kid leaving the shower area. Same thing with JM when he summarized his call with MM minutes after the incident.
Trying to compare the previous testimony by C/S to their plea statements and also to their Spanier trial testimony shows mostly consistency but also some inconsistencies IMO due to the pressures exerted by the OAG so it's a fruitless endeavor.
Once Wendy obtained the testimony of JR admitting he was told of an incident in 01 and TSM was a proper place for laymen psu admins to take that info (since one of TSM's purposes is child protection), all the talk about the psu admins role, what they said in their plea deals, etc. is moot IMO. JR and TSM are where the report ultimately died. I dont care what JR claims TC told him, he was required to look into any and all incident reports no matter how benign.