JimmyW, your article LINKED HERE misses another very obvious FALSE CLAIM relative to what was actually reported to the SWIGJ by Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov....
As you point out, it's first false claim is this:
However, it's second very clear false statement relative to testimony actually given to the SWIGJ, is this doozy:
Clearly says that MM called his father and reported what he had seen, which the Presentment said, only a couple sentences prior, was, "He [MM] saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.". Beyond that, the Presentment says in the next sentence that John McQueary's reaction to being told about the anal-rape of a 10 year old boy was to tell his 28 year old, 6' 5" 250 lb former football player son to "leave the building and come to his home". Huh???
All of this testimony diametrically conflicts with what John McQueary says - he says he wasn't told about any sexual assault whatsoever, let alone rape, and he told Mike to go to his house because Mike said the kid wasn't in danger, but was very upset at the inappropriateness of Sandusky's behavior.
Then the Presentment goes on to make the same false claim that Mike told his father and Dranov what he had seen at his father's house and they decided it should be reported AFTER THE FACT to Paterno....(rather than call Police - another staggering, huh???). Whereupon, Mike supposed told JVP "what he had seen" (i.e., again reference what the Presentment claims MM says he saw -- which MM never told the "30th SWIGJ" that he saw and MM disputes that he ever told anyone he saw these things despite conjecturing about what may have been going on.).
Lastly, What the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" says on all of these items is EXTREMELY RELEVANT from a legal perspective because as you cited, the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" was Exhibit A on the Criminal Complaints (i.e., Indictments) and served as the OAG's supposed "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in the case of the Perjury charges) for the Indictments!
The only reason these Indictments survived as long as they did was the corrupt PA Judiciary which originally denied numerous motions for Prosecutorial Misconduct all of which were appealled (ultimately getting quashed for Prosecutorial Misconduct in one of many, many Prosecutorial Misconduct motions made -- i.e., any one of the many, many, many legitimate motions to quash the Indictments for Prosecutorial Misconduct would have won, it happened that the Baldwin one won first on Appeal...).
Just absurd, and an indication of how corrupt PA Government and the PA Judiciary are, that it took this long to quash the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" Indictments which are clearly FRAUDULENT relative to the actual testimony made to the SWIGJ - most of which was made to the "30th SWIGJ", not the 33rd!!!
As you point out, it's first false claim is this:
However, it's second very clear false statement relative to testimony actually given to the SWIGJ, is this doozy:
Clearly says that MM called his father and reported what he had seen, which the Presentment said, only a couple sentences prior, was, "He [MM] saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.". Beyond that, the Presentment says in the next sentence that John McQueary's reaction to being told about the anal-rape of a 10 year old boy was to tell his 28 year old, 6' 5" 250 lb former football player son to "leave the building and come to his home". Huh???
All of this testimony diametrically conflicts with what John McQueary says - he says he wasn't told about any sexual assault whatsoever, let alone rape, and he told Mike to go to his house because Mike said the kid wasn't in danger, but was very upset at the inappropriateness of Sandusky's behavior.
Then the Presentment goes on to make the same false claim that Mike told his father and Dranov what he had seen at his father's house and they decided it should be reported AFTER THE FACT to Paterno....(rather than call Police - another staggering, huh???). Whereupon, Mike supposed told JVP "what he had seen" (i.e., again reference what the Presentment claims MM says he saw -- which MM never told the "30th SWIGJ" that he saw and MM disputes that he ever told anyone he saw these things despite conjecturing about what may have been going on.).
Lastly, What the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" says on all of these items is EXTREMELY RELEVANT from a legal perspective because as you cited, the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" was Exhibit A on the Criminal Complaints (i.e., Indictments) and served as the OAG's supposed "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in the case of the Perjury charges) for the Indictments!
The only reason these Indictments survived as long as they did was the corrupt PA Judiciary which originally denied numerous motions for Prosecutorial Misconduct all of which were appealled (ultimately getting quashed for Prosecutorial Misconduct in one of many, many Prosecutorial Misconduct motions made -- i.e., any one of the many, many, many legitimate motions to quash the Indictments for Prosecutorial Misconduct would have won, it happened that the Baldwin one won first on Appeal...).
Just absurd, and an indication of how corrupt PA Government and the PA Judiciary are, that it took this long to quash the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" Indictments which are clearly FRAUDULENT relative to the actual testimony made to the SWIGJ - most of which was made to the "30th SWIGJ", not the 33rd!!!
