The 30th SWIGJ was never given a presentment to consider. Relevant dates from
Moulton Report:
May 1 2009 -case assigned to 30th SWIGJ
March 2010 - draft presentment drawn up by Eschbach
Aug 12, 2010 - Fina denies presenting it to 30th SWIGJ
January 12, 2011 - Last session of the 30th SWIGJ
January 27, 2011 - Case resubmitted to the 33rd SWIGJ
I am surprised you failed to consider this in your expert legal analysis.
Ahhhh, citing a tautology....such fine "legal analysis". SWIGJ's are one-sided and the entire goal of the "one-side" (i.e., The State - the OAG in this case) is to generate Indictments which cannot be done without a Presentment. IOW, had Mike McQueary actually testified as the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" claims - i.e., as an "eyewitness" who stated he "saw" the things the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments claim, when he testified to the 30th SWIGJ, the "30th SWIGJ" would have produced a Presentment and Indictments.
The reason the "30th SWIGJ" didn't produce a Presentment allowing the production of Indictments is that Mike McQueary NEVER testified as the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" claims he did - McQueary, in fact, testified in the opposite fashion that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" the crime cited by the OAG Prosecution in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and accompanying Indictments, not that he did "see" and "eyewitness" it. We know this from the record including:
- McQueary's actual testimony to the "30th SWIGJ".
- A Grand Juror who sat on the "30th SWIGJ" and confirmed that MM testified to not seeing or eyewitnessing it.
- McQueary's e-mail stating as much sent to the OAG within days of their public release of the Presentment and its accompanying Indictments
- And finally, from multiple sworn statements McQueary made "at trial" including that he did not see or eyewitness what the state claimed he said he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and accompanying Indictments AND for good measure, he not only said he didn't see or eyewitness these things, but added that he never told ANYONE he had.
Given these facts, and your ever so prescient "legal analysis", could you tell us why The State Prosecutors - Corbutt's Porn-Brigade OAG - did the following in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and accompanying Indictments:
- Lied about how Mike McQueary testified to the "30th SWIGJ" claiming the diametric opposite of how he actually testified?
- Claimed an "eyewitness" as Probable Cause Evidence in support of multiple Indictments, an "eyewitness" that NEVER existed, and the OAG knew NEVER existed? (including all of the Perjury, Obsturction of Justice and Conspiracy charges given that the OAG's "slight of hand" Presentment trickeration claimed he reported this same thing to PSU as detailed in THIS PIECE BY jimmyw -- IOW, this was the "Probable Cause" and "particulars" for the Perjury Charge that supposedly was the motivation for the Obstruction and Conspiracy charges....
Given that 100% of the OAG's "Probable Cause" in the C/S/S Indictments [and the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" absolutely was cited as the Probable Cause for those Indictments] was a FALSE CLAIM by the OAG, and not just a FALSE CLAIM but the diametric opposite of what McQueary actually reported to the "30th SWIGJ" and states what he said to the "30th SWIGJ" is the opposite including multiple times under oath at trial, don't you think it's a rather absurd thing to claim as the Probable Cause and "particulars" in a Perjury Indictment??? If that isn't "Malicious Prosecution" in the extreme, I don't know what is considering that the only thing the defense needs to do is show that The State is lying when they say they have an "eyewitness" of any kind to the crimes they've cited - be a little hard for the State to claim Curley and Schultz made Perjurious statements relative to "eyewitness statements" that never occurred and said "eyewitness" never existed, wouldn't you agree Mr. "legal analysis"?
BTW, do tell how the "30th SWIGJ" could have brought a Presentment that stated what the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments claimed, when McQueary testified to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of the claims by the OAG in the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment (i.e., didn't "eyewitness" or "see", NOT that he did "eyewitness" and "see") - again, confirmed by not only Mike McQueary himself, but also a Grand Juror on the "33rd SWIGJ"??? Be a little difficult for the "30th SWIGJ" to bring a Presentment saying McQueary eyewitnessed these things when he told the "30th SWIGJ" the diametric opposite, no Mr. "legal analysis"? Or are you attempting to claim that The State is permitted to produce FRAUDULENT Probable Cause in support of an Indictment (and Fraudulent "particulars" in regards to the Perjury) just because it's a SWIGJ and SWIGJ generated Indictments? I'm confused Mr. "legal analysis" could you help me out?
