The first of your tweets looks like a product of a crazed individual to me. I wonder: what would it looks like to the average ? To the average person, I imagine the second of your tweets appears crazed as well.
Well he is or he isn't Osprey. Either way he looks like a jerk who was part of the manipulation.
From a legal perspective Curley's "report" to Raykovitz does not meet the requirements. IF he was required to report then the report had to go to some legal authority - police, CYS, DA, etc... One cannot meet their burden by reporting to a mandated reporter. Hypothetically, one could not report this by contacting a school teacher in Phila (for the sake of discussion let's assume school teachers were mandated reporters at the time). IMO once Curley and Shultz gave up on the argument that they were not required to report anything, regardless of what MM told them, they were doomed.
I honestly could care less about JS but to answer a question with a question, why did the prosecution "hide him" during the trial.[ not even sure anymore if that was when they hid him min the woods so i could be mistaken]
Or, likewise, was McQueary under the potentially mistaken belief that Paterno was out of town that evening? The context is less than clear. There are a number of possible interpretations for this statement that don't involve John McQueary, Senior's whereabouts.
The statute in effect in 2001 stated that a mandated reporter had to make a report or cause a report to be made. Rather ambiguous.
Neither the prosecution or defense "hid" the "marine" during the Sandusky trial. Allegedly, he was kept out of touch by his civil attorney, Andrew Shubin.
Mike sent two emails and he got one (universal) response from Eshbach, which was essentially the AG knew information in the GJP and the media was inaccurate and that Mike should not respond to it.McQueary sent two different emails to Eshbach/Sassano on 11/10/2011.
--
He sent one on 11/10/2011 at 10:22 am [McQ civil trial, Defense Exhibit 38 with Eshbach's reply at 7:53 pm on the same day, and Defense Exhibit 43 with Sassano's reply at 12:31 pm the following day].
In this email, McQ seems to be adding to a prior email or conversation and says,
"Also... I never went to coach paterno's house with my father... it was me and only me... he was out of town the night before... never ever have I seen JS with a child at one of our practices... I have only seen him once or twice."
McQueary also complains, "I am being misrepresented in the media... as are some others... it just is not right."
Eshbach replies to that email nine and a half hours later, at 7:53 pm, and says, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond. But you can't."
Neither McQ nor the OAG ever claimed McQ went to Paterno's house with his father.
Neither McQ nor the OAG has ever suggested McQ went to Paterno's house that night.
McQ directly refers to "being misrepresented in the media." It's pretty clear McQ is not referring to misrepresentations contained in the GJP (that's actually in the other email).
FWIW - I don't believe McQ was referring to his dad being out of town. I think he is saying Paterno was out of town (or he thought he was out of town) and that's why he didn't go right over to Paterno's house that night, perhaps because that's the only situation where he might've had his father tag-along, since he was at his dad's house that night, and he was at his house the next morning (and not with his father) before he went over to Paterno's house. Whatever. This topic is all speculation at this point. What isn't speculation is what Eshbach told McQueary in emails, and what she testified to. I find that far more interesting & compelling.
--
McQ sent the other email on 11/10/2011 at 3:10 pm [McQ civil trial, Plaintiff Exhibit 43]. If you follow the timestamps, he sends this email after the one mentioned above, and before Eshbach replied to it.
In this email, McQ asks,
"What are my options as far as a statement from from me goes... will I be in any legal trouble... any trouble with the law?"
"I feel my words were slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment... I may be wrong, but is there any way that Tim [Fleming, his lawyer] and or I can get a copy of actual GJ testimony."
Obviously in this email McQueary has issues with what was in the GJP.
There were no exhibits published with Eshbach's email response, but she did testify about what she told McQueary (on 10/17/2016, morning session, p.99-100). She told McQ not to say anything (about his words being twisted in the GJP) because it would hurt her case - actually, to be specific, she said McQ not saying anything would strengthen and save her case.
Now, if you really want to see how Eshbach characterizes McQueary's statements, just compare and contrast her two testimonies below:
Nearly five years after the GJP was released and Eshbach was still twisting.
Yes, I do want you to talk about it. V2 is the most important because it is the single sole incident that caused this to blow up. We have since learned that the GJP characterization of it was a lie, that V2 himself said it was a lie, that nobody covered up anything and the grand-standing drunken tree-crasher lied, and that well over $200M was stolen from Penn State. It was the fulcrum on which every other alleged incident was tied. So yes, I do want you to speak about it.
Most of us knew about Eshbach's words in October 2016 and that she advised Mike not to respond to inaccurate reports or make a statement contrary to the information in the presentment.
The AG could have easily convicted Jerry without McQueary's testimony. He was the 8th prosecution witness. By the time he testified, the jury had already decided Jerry was guilty. Jurors stated that they found Victim 4's testimony to be credible and that testimony did in Jerry and PSU. That's why the prosecution put Victim 4 first.
McQueary sent two different emails to Eshbach/Sassano on 11/10/2011.
--
He sent one on 11/10/2011 at 10:22 am [McQ civil trial, Defense Exhibit 38 with Eshbach's reply at 7:53 pm on the same day, and Defense Exhibit 43 with Sassano's reply at 12:31 pm the following day].
In this email, McQ seems to be adding to a prior email or conversation and says,
"Also... I never went to coach paterno's house with my father... it was me and only me... he was out of town the night before... never ever have I seen JS with a child at one of our practices... I have only seen him once or twice."
McQueary also complains, "I am being misrepresented in the media... as are some others... it just is not right."
Eshbach replies to that email nine and a half hours later, at 7:53 pm, and says, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond. But you can't."
Neither McQ nor the OAG ever claimed McQ went to Paterno's house with his father.
Neither McQ nor the OAG has ever suggested McQ went to Paterno's house that night.
McQ directly refers to "being misrepresented in the media." It's pretty clear McQ is not referring to misrepresentations contained in the GJP (that's actually in the other email).
FWIW - I don't believe McQ was referring to his dad being out of town. I think he is saying Paterno was out of town (or he thought he was out of town) and that's why he didn't go right over to Paterno's house that night, perhaps because that's the only situation where he might've had his father tag-along, since he was at his dad's house that night, and he was at his house the next morning (and not with his father) before he went over to Paterno's house. Whatever. This topic is all speculation at this point. What isn't speculation is what Eshbach told McQueary in emails, and what she testified to. I find that far more interesting & compelling.
--
McQ sent the other email on 11/10/2011 at 3:10 pm [McQ civil trial, Plaintiff Exhibit 43]. If you follow the timestamps, he sends this email after the one mentioned above, and before Eshbach replied to it.
In this email, McQ asks,
"What are my options as far as a statement from from me goes... will I be in any legal trouble... any trouble with the law?"
"I feel my words were slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment... I may be wrong, but is there any way that Tim [Fleming, his lawyer] and or I can get a copy of actual GJ testimony."
Obviously in this email McQueary has issues with what was in the GJP.
There were no exhibits published with Eshbach's email response, but she did testify about what she told McQueary (on 10/17/2016, morning session, p.99-100). She told McQ not to say anything (about his words being twisted in the GJP) because it would hurt her case - actually, to be specific, she said McQ not saying anything would strengthen and save her case.
Now, if you really want to see how Eshbach characterizes McQueary's statements, just compare and contrast her two testimonies below:
Nearly five years after the GJP was released and Eshbach was still twisting.
What sort of "reliable evidence" would convince you or anyone else?
Yes. I believe the "marine" is not Victim #2 because I have not found any legitimate evidence that places him in the shower with Sandusky on February 9, 2001.
What you wrote is propaganda.
I'll elaborate a bit.
This is where I get off the train. That is just a little too conspiracy theory for me.
"the night before" is important.
Spanier was not arrested in 2011 and was free to talk. He was not arrested until a year later.
