What evidence was submitted at trial that would nail down the date?
MM's testimony and the emails.
There is not physical evidence and there is no confirmatory information. Keep in mind the OAG got the date wrong MULTIPLE times before the trial.
This happens often and once more evidence was revealed it became clear.
All we have is McQueary's testimony which does not match up with what was happening on campus that night (a concert and a club hockey game).
Courtesy of
@JmmyW.
Ziegler's primary motivation is not the truth, it's clicks.
Ziegler definitely ignores things that don't support his stance. When called out on it, he'll continue to ignore it.
He's not above lying about testimony, either. When he does talk about testimony, he seldom if ever cites it so that an independent reviewer can fact check it.
Here's some basic questions I sent him on Twitter on 4/20/21. He's seen them, but continues to ignore them.
So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that clearly placed the night of the incident, and his meeting at the McQueary household, on 2/9/2001? (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.162)
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that Schultz told him The Second Mile had already been informed? That places the date of his meeting with Schultz well after mid-March 2001. (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.161)
You talk about Curley's 2 meetings with Sandusky. You mention Sandusky's confusion at the 1st meeting. Why did you ignore Curley's testimony that Sandusky wanted to check his calendar, did so, & confirmed the 2/9/2001 date in their 2nd meeting? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.358, 389-390)
Schultz bought into your date theory in part because he clearly remembers telling Dranov the investigation was ongoing. He said so four times (1x in 1st interview, 3x in 2nd). But Schultz testified in 2017 he had no recollection of this. Why do you think that is? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.470)
What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
The confirmatory information is that the date Sandusky suggests it was is confirmed by a phone call with his friend/college rooomate and the timing of the UVA job interview process.
Cite?
Can't do one without the other.
They are unrelated so yes you can.
They won't ignore you, but if you you know they need to talk to the eyewitness and you are not sure what the eyewitness has seen the proper thing to do is to encourage the eyewitness to call the police if they believe they have observed a crime.
McQueary did not think it was necessary to call the police. This is very telling.
Yet according to Joe MM told him of CSA. Joe did not think it necessary to call the police. This is very telling
I'd be upset too if I was about to tell a major lie.
Yet four independent juries believed him. He had no reason to lie, in fact I bet today he wishes he had never seen it. It ruined him.
Paterno's age (and the time between the incident and the trial) makes anything he said somewhat questionable.
Opinion. He testified.
Sandusky wasn't a local god.
Absolutely was. He was on that mural and even had an ice cream flavor named for him at the creamery.
Not rightfully so. Sandusky certainly didn't have the ability to fire McQueary. There was zero reason for him to expect any sort of blowback for doing the right thing as Paterno (who was famous for doing the right thing) was his supervisor (not Sandusky).
Please. MM was a GA and Sandusky a local god. Had he not got Paterno's protection he would have been released when his time was up and black balled for accusing such a god.
No, he went to Paterno trying to get a promotion.
Made up by Ziegler
No, he's not sure what he saw. See emails between MM and OAG's office.
I've done better and read his court testimony and read Joe's testimony. CSA
See comment above re: Paterno's testimony.
Bunk
