You seem to be very confused about McQueary's testimony. You should read through his testimony in the preliminary hearing.
More from Bruce Heim
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
You seem to be very confused about McQueary's testimony. You should read through his testimony in the preliminary hearing.
Here are a couple links regarding eye witness testimony and the fiction of memory
Guys - I was being illustrative, you are correct - to posit a theory about Fina.
I'd like to hear your thoughts more on Fina and his creative use of leaks and a grand jury. Does any of what I said make sense?
I'd like to hear your thoughts more on Fina and his creative use of leaks and a grand jury. Does any of what I said make sense?
There are certainly other explanations which haven't quite been explored by anyone, really.
We don't know why MMq was in the locker room that night. He says he was inspired by Rudy to put shoes away, or some such nonsense.
Suppose he was doing something himself that was "inappropriate" that night, there. Maybe he's in possession of something that he doesn't want anyone to see. Maybe he had been doing something he doesn't want anyone to know about. Maybe his judgement was impaired in one way or another.
Now, he comes clean later with Dad & Dr. D, but they ask him pointedly: "Given the condition you were in, ARE YOU SURE OF WHAT YOU THINK YOU SAW/HEARD" He says, "no." Or maybe he didn't tell them the whole story of why he was there, but when they asked why he didn't call 911, he immediately backed off.
Then in 2010, there isn't going to be any evidence of whatever he was actually up to himself that night, and he's since been up to other things (similar or not). So to get police on his side he tells them whatever he thinks they want to hear. Depending on what he was doing that night, and the length of time since, he likely doesn't remember exactly, but wants to make them happy.
Then he realizes, by the time there's an actual trial, I've just thrown Dad & Dr D & others under the bus, time to back off again in trial testimony.
This isn't that hard. What is hard to believe is that none of the lawyers on any side seemed to probe as to what MMq was actually up to/what his state of mind was that night.
Rudy? Really?
I don't see all of it.... But ... the timing of the "dumpster fire" was certainly political, and shows no direct ill intent towards JoePa. Specifically, just after win #409, not when Joe was tied at 408, but not two weeks later when his win total might have a chance to be higher. Just at the right time & on a "bye-week."
However, that they waited until 409 indicates that they knew it could blow up on Joe. And if it blew up on Joe at 408 or 407 wins, it would have been MASSIVELY harder for them to get a local jury on the State's side vs. Sandusky.
Moulton & everybody else ignores the timing, but it's too much of a coincidence to be anything but intentional.
This wasn't specifically addressed in your post, but if your point was that Fina/Kelly were politically tuned in, there you go.
Which is why I think it's more plausible that he didn't witness abuse, and only thinks he did or decided to embellish his story many years later for some unknown reason. None of the actions taken in 2001 align with witnessing abuse.
Certainly possible, but seems like a stretch. You are making an awful lot of assumptions here with no supporting data.
And yet the PA press clings to this myth that Frank Fina is some kind of caped crusader against corruption.
Who ever said that's what he told them? The OAG? Now, THERE'S a reliable source! Mike never said that he told Curley and Schultz that he was sure Sandusky was screwing a boy in the shower. In fact he's on the record of saying exactly the opposite at the Curley and Schultz at their prelim. He testified that he never used terms like rape or anal sex when talking to any one about it at any time. He told them what he saw and that he believed it was way over the line. Not clean enough for you?
Edit: and one other thing, thanks to Spanier's suit against Freeh we now have a transcript of Mike's GJ testimony. He didn't testify that he told Curley and Schultz he saw Sandusky raping the kid in the shower. The OAG goaded him into claiming that now in 2010 that's what he believed was going on (which is entirely irrelevant to the case of Curley and Schultz) and the OAG filled in the rest. In other words, the OAG just made that shit up.
No question about it. Which comes back around to nearly the Original Post on this thread. Why do folks assume Tim Curley told TSM that there was CSA in the showers?
Even if he said "We have a report that something inappropriate happened in the shower" -- that does not mean that there was sex. Or even grooming. It could have been just a towel fight, which is enough to ban Jerry from the facility (due to liability of injuries). So when Jack asks Tim, "are you saying JS is abusing kids?" or something like that, Tim, says, "no, but his behavior is inappropriate".
So this wouldn't be cause for reporting on the TSM side.
Folks seem to assume that everyone is a mindreader.
You're with TSM aren't you?
Are you crazy?
I believe that they were the biggest scam going. But I don't think anybody was getting "rich" from them. I think they presented themselves as "helping" 100's of thousands of PA kids, but what that meant, for the most part, is handing them a custom printed PSU football card. They were a bunch of doofuses who used that to collect money from other morons, some big & some small.
I also believe wasting time on those idiots is, well, wasting time. And perpetuates the myth that the Paternos & Clemente have been trying to dispel, that good-guy predators live amongst us, undetected, and there's no point in going back in time, with the benefit of hindsight, and wishing TSM was anything more than a bunch of fools.
No I'm not crazy. As a matter of fact I happen to be correct. TSM is at the root of this, that hasn't changed. You are deflecting from them, the why is what I'm trying to determine
Mike McQueary: "I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."
Read his testimony.
MM's testimony from 12/16/11 prelim is all over the place.
Pg. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over. They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act”.
Just in that one sentence alone MM makes an illogical statement. They decided to not call the police even though MM was perfectly confident he saw a severe sexual act between JS and an unknown boy...
Ummm. What??
And these grown men then decided the best course of action was to not call UPPD/ChildLine(anonymously if preferred) asap but instead tell a freaking football coach the next day. Yep. Sure. The makes perfect sense....
Then later on in the 12/16/11 prelim JM contracts MM's above statement.
Pg. 151 (Farrell cross examination of JM re: the meeting between Schultz JM and Dr. D a few months after the incident):
Q: Do you recall Dr. Dranov disagreeing with your description of what Mike said when you said it to Mr. Schultz?
A: Not disagreeing, at least at that time, no I don’t – I don’t believe he did
Q: Did he add facts to it or correct facts?
A: We’ve had conversations so many times, it’s difficult to put into place what occurred week one, month one, year ten. And so I feel uncomfortable answer that because I don’t – I can’t say it with 100 percent certainty
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
=============================
Since when is certain sodmony (from MM's 2010 written statement to OAG) or a severe sexual act with a child not considered a crime and described as at least a very inappropriate action (notice there is some grey area with the 'at least' wording)???
Doesn't add up folks.
So you are in the "Joe & CSS covered this up camp?" OK.
If that's what you got from my post and previous postings in this thread then you don't understand the English language and you're not worth starting a dialog with.
I suppose I have to concede your point on this one; but man, his various testimonies are ALL OVER THE PLACE. It's awfully tough to keep up. I never truly believed he himself ever legitimately believed that he witnessed some kind of intercourse going on and that I believe is one place where he could have possibly beefed his story up in an effort to help the prosecution gain a conviction. And that's where I always had a problem with Mike. If that's how it went down he should have never trusted the prosecutors and should have just kept strictly to the facts. But how can you say a guy is lying about his beliefs? If he truly does...and more importantly believed back in 2001....that he was witnessing an anal rape then he's not only a complete whack job but also every bit as guilty of being the complete scumbag you and and some of the others here and guys like Truckster27 on TOS always insisted he is. If he never truly believed he was witnessing an anal rape and his "harmless" little embellishments are a big part of what got Gary and Tim indicted then he owes it to them to clear the air....although I wouldn't see that happening with $4,000,000 on the line, amiright? Regardless, Mike sure does love his weasel words, doesn't he. Gotta go to the game now. Take care.
Spot on analysis. MM is either a liar or a coward/monster. There is no scenario wherein MM wears a white hat.
BPLION, I hope all the posters take the time to watch your youtube videos. It sums up my contention that Mike was shocked Jerry was horse playing with a naked boy alone in the shower. After talking it over with 5 people, Mike concluded it was disgusting, but Jerry being Jerry. Mike then continued to help Jerry with his 2nd Mile events.
The detectives then convinced Mike that Jerry was a monster. I think Mike believes this today, but if you look at the facts there is no basis of a rape or anything sexual.
I think the same thing happened with the "victims". Jerry was being Jerry (weird and crossing boundaries). I think people kept hammering away at them until their memory changed. The "victims" had holes in their testimony, but the lawyers shrewdly coached them through.
