The Crux of Mike McQueray Matter.

[pnnylion]

"A member of the 30th grand jury now disputes the presentment's characterization of McQueary as "extremely credible." Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of the Home Depot in York, Pa., says he was skeptical of McQueary's claim that sexual acts were going on between the boy and Sandusky because McQueary also said that he didn't see penetration. "This planted a seed with me -- either you saw it or you didn't," says Bolton, who was one of 23 grand jurors. The prosecutors "kind of glossed over it and moved on to who [McQueary] told, which started the whole Joe Paterno thing."

 

[Class of 67]

What's this from? Date?*

*

 

[JoeBatters1]

I think it's from the Van Natta (ESPN) piece on McQueary that was done

maybe a year and half ago or so.

 

[NittanyAmerica]

McQueary had way too many issues of his own to tell the truth about anything. He was a vindictive gambler. He was in deep on a co ed and his wife knew about it and left him. His Dad knows he is a raging liar. He told JoePa next to nothing and JoePa still reported it !!!!!

This is the case used to hang Jerry.

Give a crotal a voice and listen to what you get.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

 

[Nashville Lion]

McQueary is not reliable at all...changed his story many times.

 

[lionlurker]

I'm confused. Are you sure you don't mean McQuade?

He was quite prominent at one time, if I remember correctly.

 

[PSU_Nut]

So it only sexual abuse if there is penetration? I don't care if he saw penetration or not. If he thought it was potentially sexual abuse then you handle it like that regardless if he saw actually abuse. If you hear gun shots and see a guy pointing what looks like it could be a gun do you not call the police because you didn't see the gun? How desperate are you to justify Penn State handling of the incident if you think this is some exculpatory evidence. Even if he saw penetration would it have mattered? After all the ivy league educated head coach did understand what child sexual molestation was.

 

[pnnylion]

Originally posted by NittanyAmerica:

McQueary had way too many issues of his own to tell the truth about anything. He was a vindictive gambler. He was in deep on a co ed and his wife knew about it and left him. His Dad knows he is a raging liar. He told JoePa next to nothing and JoePa still reported it !!!!!

This is the case used to hang Jerry.

Give a crotal a voice and listen to what you get.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

And Joe.

 

[Southeastern PA Buck]

Originally posted by pnnylion:


"A member of the 30th grand jury now disputes the presentment's characterization of McQueary as "extremely credible." Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of the Home Depot in York, Pa., says he was skeptical of McQueary's claim that sexual acts were going on between the boy and Sandusky because McQueary also said that he didn't see penetration. "This planted a seed with me -- either you saw it or you didn't," says Bolton, who was one of 23 grand jurors. The prosecutors "kind of glossed over it and moved on to who [McQueary] told, which started the whole Joe Paterno thing."

SMH... how did a jury ever find McQuade credible? The man never witnessed penetration... ever.

 

[pnnylion]

Originally posted by Southeastern PA Buck:

Originally posted by pnnylion:


"A member of the 30th grand jury now disputes the presentment's characterization of McQueary as "extremely credible." Stan Bolton, a 53-year-old employee of the Home Depot in York, Pa., says he was skeptical of McQueary's claim that sexual acts were going on between the boy and Sandusky because McQueary also said that he didn't see penetration. "This planted a seed with me -- either you saw it or you didn't," says Bolton, who was one of 23 grand jurors. The prosecutors "kind of glossed over it and moved on to who [McQueary] told, which started the whole Joe Paterno thing."

SMH... how did a jury ever find McQuade credible? The man never witnessed penetration... ever.

"Now you don't see it, now you don't see it again".

 

[Mufasa94]

PSUNut wrote:
If he thought it was potentially sexual abuse then you handle it like that regardless if he saw abuse. If you hear gun shots and see a guy pointing what looks like it could be a gun do you not call the police because you didn't see the gun?

If the witness had only called the police right after witnessing whatever it was he saw.

Or after calling his dad for advice while on the premises.

Or after apparently talking to his girlfriend while on the way over to his dad's house.

Or after talking to his dad face to face.

Or after talking to his dad's close advisor face to face.

Or, before putting his head down on the pillow to get some sleep.

And so on…for close to a decade.

 

[HoustonNit]

Psu Nut


I think the problem is with McQueary's credibility.

A couple of scenarios could have occurred.

The OAG slapped charges on CSS to shut them up
so no one could refute McQueary.

One scenario that could have happened was:

A. McQueary saw JS showering w a kid in 2001 (which he thought was 2002).
He may not have had a good enough view to tell what was happening. He may have
Heard them and dreampt up visions in his head. He may not have reported
any detail to Paterno or CSS.

After the police got to him 9 years later his story
Became anal rape.

If he was blackmailed by the police to expose his, gambling, affairs and sexting
Pics, he may very well said anything. This is now 2011. I don't
Believe what he says since the cops got to him.

You weren't there, I wasn't there, only JS, McQueary and the kid. No kid
Testified against Jerry.

It all depends what he told CSS and Joe in 2001.

Was it Jerry showering w a kid or Jerry raping a kid.

One is a despicable, unconsciounable, evil crime. One is weird, creepy but may not be illegal.

I think that's we people want to get to the bottom of.

 

[jjsocrates]

Originally posted by PSU_Nut:

So it only sexual abuse if there is penetration? I don't care if he saw penetration or not. If he thought it was potentially sexual abuse then you handle it like that regardless if he saw actually abuse. If you hear gun shots and see a guy pointing what looks like it could be a gun do you not call the police because you didn't see the gun? How desperate are you to justify Penn State handling of the incident if you think this is some exculpatory evidence. Even if he saw penetration would it have mattered? After all the ivy league educated head coach did understand what child sexual molestation was.

I hear gunshots outside of my house every day. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Do I call the police? No. Because its a guy shooting at the deer that have been coming on to his land. Its not a potential homicide.

And that's what you're leaving out of your argument, good sir - CONTEXT[/B].

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by Mufasa94:



PSUNut wrote:
If he thought it was potentially sexual abuse then you handle it like that regardless if he saw abuse. If you hear gun shots and see a guy pointing what looks like it could be a gun do you not call the police because you didn't see the gun?

If the witness had only called the police right after witnessing whatever it was he saw.

Or after calling his dad for advice while on the premises.

Or after apparently talking to his girlfriend while on the way over to his dad's house.

Or after talking to his dad face to face.

Or after talking to his dad's close advisor face to face.

Or, before putting his head down on the pillow to get some sleep.

And so on…for close to a decade.

He could have but I guess I hold some of the highest paid administrator at the school to a higher standard. I think he should have but guess what he didn't. His inaction doesn't not justify the inaction of the Penn State administration. Sorry but these guys were all paid well to handle difficult items. I don't think it asking to much for them to actually do something rather then play the I thought someone else was going to do something. It sad what low expectations some people have. If this happen at Ohio State how many here would be defending Urban Meyer and OSU administrators because the GA could have called the police.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by HoustonNit:
Psu Nut


I think the problem is with McQueary's credibility.

A couple of scenarios could have occurred.

The OAG slapped charges on CSS to shut them up
so no one could refute McQueary.

One scenario that could have happened was:

A. McQueary saw JS showering w a kid in 2001 (which he thought was 2002).
He may not have had a good enough view to tell what was happening. He may have
Heard them and dreampt up visions in his head. He may not have reported
any detail to Paterno or CSS.

After the police got to him 9 years later his story
Became anal rape.

If he was blackmailed by the police to expose his, gambling, affairs and sexting
Pics, he may very well said anything. This is now 2011. I don't
Believe what he says since the cops got to him.

You weren't there, I wasn't there, only JS, McQueary and the kid. No kid
Testified against Jerry.

It all depends what he told CSS and Joe in 2001.

Was it Jerry showering w a kid or Jerry raping a kid.

One is a despicable, unconsciounable, evil crime. One is weird, creepy but may not be illegal.

I think that's we people want to get to the bottom of.

So are you saying Joe perjured himself to the grand jury when he testified that it was sexual in nature?

People don't want to get to the bottom of anything. They are not searching for the truth. They just want to exonerate Joe and the University. They are not open to the fact that McQuery may be telling the truth and Joe and the Administrators actively covered up for Sandusky.

If the rumors of his gambling, affairs sexting pics were all true how was he still on staff. How did the police know all this information but no one on the staff knew including guys who had lived with him. Was Penn State administrators so out of touch? Or could it be that they were all aware of these activities but were afraid he would blow the cover up if they fired him. Your black mailing theory can just as easily point to a cover up.
This post was edited on 4/2 10:46 PM by PSU_Nut

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by jjsocrates:

Originally posted by PSU_Nut:

So it only sexual abuse if there is penetration? I don't care if he saw penetration or not. If he thought it was potentially sexual abuse then you handle it like that regardless if he saw actually abuse. If you hear gun shots and see a guy pointing what looks like it could be a gun do you not call the police because you didn't see the gun? How desperate are you to justify Penn State handling of the incident if you think this is some exculpatory evidence. Even if he saw penetration would it have mattered? After all the ivy league educated head coach did understand what child sexual molestation was.

I hear gunshots outside of my house every day. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Do I call the police? No. Because its a guy shooting at the deer that have been coming on to his land. Its not a potential homicide.

And that's what you're leaving out of your argument, good sir - CONTEXT[/B].

Do you walk in on a man naked in the shower in your office everyday after everyone left? Is that enough context for you? So maybe i should clarify. You walk in to what suppose to be a empty office. You see and hear what sounds like someone shooting another person. You don't actually see the gun do you just blow it off because you didn;t see the gun.

 

[indynittany]

Originally posted by PSU_Nut:

They are not open to the fact that McQuery may be telling the truth and Joe and the Administrators actively covered up for Sandusky.

This post was edited on 4/2 10:46 PM by PSU_Nut

That's because the written evidence from 2001 totally dispels that narrative.

 

[Evan Ceg]

On one hand what McQueary actually did see and did not see is important to the innocence or guilt of Jerry Sandusky regarding the Lasch shower incident on which Sandusky was convicted on four of five counts. I expect C/S/S defense counsel to go hard after the facts of what McQueary actually saw.

On the other hand, what's is relevant here is what McQueary believed he saw, no matter how wrong he may factually be. McQueary reported what he believed to be a sexual assault. McQueary has never changed his story that he believed he stumbled into a sexual assault by Sandusky against a minor male. Even if McQueary is dead wrong about what he saw, the fact remains that he reported an incident to University officials that undoubtedly deserved to be investigated, and the University never investigated.
Multiple witnesses, including Joe Paterno, reported that McQueary was very upset by what he saw that night.The jury convicted Sandusky of four counts of sexual assault based on McQueary's testimony.Joe Paterno is twice on record relating McQueary's depiction as "sexual," "fondling" and "inappropriate" in describing what a mid-50's male and a minor boy were doing alone in a big, empty University building late on a weekend night. Joe didn't pick those words purely at random. Whatever it was, it sure as hell wasn't towel-snapping horseplay according to McQueary. Now, how descriptive McQueary was with Curley and Schultz is still unknown, we only know what C/S/S lawyers have said.Why didn't the University investigate? Even if you suspect it's "just Jerry being Jerry," you give the benefit of doubt to the safety of children, not to Sandusky, and you investigate.




This post was edited on 4/3 12:01 AM by Evan Ceg

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by indynittany:

Originally posted by PSU_Nut:

They are not open to the fact that McQuery may be telling the truth and Joe and the Administrators actively covered up for Sandusky.

This post was edited on 4/2 10:46 PM by PSU_Nut

That's because the written evidence from 2001 totally dispels that narrative.

What written evidence?

 

[nits74]

Why didn't the University investigate? Even if you suspect it"s "just Jerry being Jerry," you give the benefit of doubt to the safety of children, not to Sandusky[/B], and you investigate.


Or you report it to his employer who is a mandatory reporter. Oh, wait a minute.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:
On one hand what McQueary actually did see and did not see is important to the innocence or guilt of Jerry Sandusky regarding the Lasch shower incident on which Sandusky was convicted of four of five counts. I expect C/S/S defense counsel to go hard after the facts of what McQueary actually saw.

On the other hand, what's is relevant here is what McQueary believed he saw, no matter how wrong he may factually be. McQueary reported what he believed to be a sexual assault. McQueary has never changed his story that he believed he stumbled into a sexual assault by Sandusky against a minor male. Even if McQueary is dead wrong about what he saw, the fact remains that he reported an incident to university officials that undoubtedly deserved to be investigated, and the university never investigated.
Multiple witnesses, including Joe Paterno, reported that McQueary was very upset by what he saw that night.The jury convicted Sandusky of four counts of sexual assault based on McQueary's testimony.Joe Paterno is twice on record relating McQueary's depiction as "sexual," "fondling" and "inappropriate" in describing what a mid-50's male and a minor boy were doing alone in a big, empty University building late on a weekend night. Joe didn't pick those words purely at random. Whatever it was, it sure as hell wasn't towel-snapping horseplay according to McQueary. Now, how descriptive McQueary was with Curley and Schultz is still unknown, we only know what C/S/S lawyers have said.Why didn't the University investigate? Even if you suspect it"s "just Jerry being Jerry," you give the benefit of doubt to the safety of children, not to Sandusky, and you investigate.

Not to mention cover you and the university behind. Competent administrators would have at very minimum documented who when and what they did. They seem to recall reporting it yet not a single person can say who what when and where. At the very minimum a competent administrator would have a summary of course of action. This is basic administrator things. If it was called I would have record at least time and date call was made and the person who you spoke to. Even the basic I spoke to Jon Doe with CYS at 11:30 am on June 3 2001. Then include a brief summary. Obviously they felt the matter was important because they had many high level officials involved.

Also pa defines sexual abuse as follows: The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to engage in sexually explicit conduct, or a simulation of sexually explicit conduct, for the purpose of producing a visual depiction, including photographing, videotaping, computer depicting or filming of sexually explicit conduct or the rape, sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, molestation, incest, indecent exposure, prostitution, statutory sexual assault or other form of sexual exploitation of children.

No where does it say penetration is required for it to be classified as abuse. It also state reasonable cause as the threshold for reporting. It doesn't say that you have to be 100% certain that abuse occurred such seeing penetration. It sad that people try to claim that the only way Penn State should have reported is if MM said he saw penetration.

[/URL]
This post was edited on 4/2 11:45 PM by PSU_Nut

 

[Mufasa94]

PSU Nut wrote: He could have but I guess I hold some of the highest paid administrator at the school to a higher standard.

In your earlier example where you attempted to correlate an incident involving a gun with the 2001 incident, you specifically discussed the action of the actual witness. Therefore, I pointed out the multiple opportunities that the actual only witness of 2001 had to contact the authorities for what he described from 2009 and beyond.

I find it rather hard to believe that in 2001, upon hearing what the lone witness has recently claimed, quite possibly 3 people (2 not even being a part of his family) would decide to not recommend that he immediately contact the authorities.

As for the action or inaction of the PSU administrators, while I wish they would have made a different choice based on what we now know, I cannot say I am positive they made the wrong choice based on what they knew in 2001. I would like to know more of what they were actually told, not what the witness says he "would have told" them then. I hope the trials take place to find out some more information.

On a similar note with even more tragic consequences, I wish the security at a NYC airport had done something differently the morning of September 11, 2001. I cannot be positive they actually did something wrong with what they knew at the time.

 

[Kiber]

Actually the 'penetration' part is gigantic.

You actually see 'penetration' and it is a slam dunk, no brainer, all bets off, no questions asked, end of story ..... "Penetration" equates to absolutely no question that it is 100% a case of molestation. There is no explanation. There is no justification. There is no trying to explain it away with a reason. It is cuff him and take him to jail.

Without 'penetration" or 'no penetration', leaves a huge question mark and takes things down a different path. You do not see penetration, then the line of questioning and the investigation has to try a discover if it was illegal or not. You are 100% absolutely correct. it CAN be sexual abuse and illegal withOUT penetration. On that you are correct. But you have to be damn sure and you have to dig real deep.

 

[rifraf]

Actually what matters in the case of PSU administrators is what McQueary told them at that time. If he told them he thought he saw a child being raped, whether he saw penetration or not, then I would agree with you about the administers obligation to investigate and report. Unfortunately it is not clear what McQueary told them - hence the need for the trials to get the truth. My hesitation in believing MCQueary's current version is it is inconsistent with McQueary Sr., Dranov, Paterno, and his own actions that night/weekend. If he had seen and reported what he thought was a child being raped it makes no sense that all of these folks took the action they did. Instead of anyone calling police they decided to go to bed and see Paterno in the morning. My guess is he described something unsettling but was vague and unclear - essentially never left anyone feeling a child was in danger. With the advantage of hindsight we all know that was wrong but it is what people understood at that time that matters. I think they did what they thought made sense at that time, including Paterno. But we could be wrong, which is why many of us want to learn what happened.

 

[marshall23]

The ONLY facts:
MM witnessed something involving JS and a boy that upset him. HE DID NOT CALL POLICE OR ANY CPA.
He called his father. JM and Dr.D listened intently as MM related what he saw MINUTES before. THEY DID NOT ADVISE, NOR DID THEY CALL POLICE OR A CPA. The next morning MM told Joe what he witnessed. Joe DID NOT CALL THE POLICE OR CPA NOR DID HE ADVISE MIKE TO DO SO. Joe told Tim, Tim called Gary and Gary called Wendall. None of them CALLED THE POLICE OR A CPA( perhaps Harmon did?) . Curley and Shultz met with MM. Curley informed JR of the incident. JR, a mandated reporter, who did contract work for CYS, DID NOT CALL POLICE OR INFORM ANY CPA.
All of these people, who by all standards have lived exemplary lives and were widely respected, risked everything to cover up the rape of a child? NONSENSE.
MM was so upset with what he witnessed and the fact that nothing was done about the abuse he witnessed, that he continued to work 10 years for these people.
It all makes perfect sense?

 

[rifraf]

Agree - the simplest and most logical explanation for everyone's actions over that weekend is no one thought a child was being raped. Any other assumption assumes that these otherwise well regarded individuals individually decided to cover up the abuse for some reason I can't fathom. MCQueary's current version just makes no sense in light of what actually happened. I think he is toast if he ever gets to a witness stand and has to explain his, McQueary Sr., and Dranov's actions that night in light of his testimony. The only thing he can say is he had one story for family and Paterno and another for C&S, which also makes no sense.

 

[Madsol]

Originally posted by PSU_Nut:


People don't want to get to the bottom of anything. They are not searching for the truth. They just want to exonerate Joe and the University. They are not open to the fact that McQuery may be telling the truth and Joe and the Administrators actively covered up for Sandusky.

For some reason, you so desperately want this to be true that no evidence to the contrary will change your mind. At least as far as Paterno is concerned. I'm guessing you really couldn't care less about C/S/S. It's Paterno that's in your crosshairs. He either didn't sign your kid's football or he didn't say hello to you when you saw him on a bowl trip or some other petty thing that you can't let go. So you dismiss the statement of the lead Sandusky prosecutor who said there was no evidence that Paterno was involved in a coverup. That statement alone should slam the door shut for anyone without an agenda on this absurd claim that Paterno covered up Sandusky. But that clearly isn't you. Or how about the fact that it's been almost 3 1/2 years and nothing and nobody, including the "exhaustive" and "thoroughly detailed" Freeh report, has presented any evidence whatsoever that Paterno was involved in a cover up. Not a single piece of evidence (and before your cite to them as evidence, Freeh's "reasonable conclusions" don't count as evidence). Yet you cling to the hope that somehow it's true, that Paterno really was the monster that you knew he was, for reasons known only to you and God. Apparently, you hated Paterno that much. You're a sad, sad person.

 

[OaktonDave]

Originally posted by rifraf:
Actually what matters in the case of PSU administrators is what McQueary told them at that time. If he told them he thought he saw a child being raped, whether he saw penetration or not, then I would agree with you about the administers obligation to investigate and report. Unfortunately it is not clear what McQueary told them - hence the need for the trials to get the truth. My hesitation in believing MCQueary's current version is it is inconsistent with McQueary Sr., Dranov, Paterno, and his own actions that night/weekend. If he had seen and reported what he thought was a child being raped it makes no sense that all of these folks took the action they did. Instead of anyone calling police they decided to go to bed and see Paterno in the morning. My guess is he described something unsettling but was vague and unclear - essentially never left anyone feeling a child was in danger. With the advantage of hindsight we all know that was wrong but it is what people understood at that time that matters. I think they did what they thought made sense at that time, including Paterno. But we could be wrong, which is why many of us want to learn what happened.

This my problem with the incident. You witness what you think is a child is being molested and your reaction is to walk away. Really? You're told that an easily identified assailant was seen molesting a child and is still with the child and your idea of sound advice doesn't include taking immediate action to get law enforcement involved? Really? Who on God's green earth responds that way?

 

[nits74]

Exactly, Madsol. There are several on this board that want badly for the accepted narrative to be true. No sense mentioning them. We know who they are.

This post was edited on 4/3 9:39 AM by nits74

 

[bdgan]

Here's the real crux of Mike McQueray Matter:

John McQueary said that MM didn't tell him about anything sexual
Dranov said that MM didn't tell him about anything sexual
Paterno said "MM at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report"
MM said "you don't go to coach Paterno and go in detail about sexual acts"
Curley & Shultz both tesified that they were not aware of anything sexual

So why should we believe everybody but Curley & Shultz? It makes no sense.

 

[OaktonDave]

Re: Here's the real crux of Mike McQueray Matter:

Originally posted by bdgan:
John McQueary said that MM didn't tell him about anything sexual
Dranov said that MM didn't tell him about anything sexual
Paterno said "MM at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report"
MM said "you don't go to coach Paterno and go in detail about sexual acts"
Curley & Shultz both tesified that they were not aware of anything sexual

So why should we believe everybody but Curley & Shultz? It makes no sense.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you "turn the sound off", the reactions of the parties involved are consistent. None behaved like they observed a child being molested or heard a report of a child being molested. All behaved like they observed or heard about something that caused them some level of concern, but didn't present the clear course of response.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Originally posted by nits74:
Why didn't the University investigate? Even if you suspect it"s "just Jerry being Jerry," you give the benefit of doubt to the safety of children, not to Sandusky[/B], and you investigate.


Or you report it to his employer who is a mandatory reporter. Oh, wait a minute.

They think they did. But the idiots have no documentation of who what when and where. If I was reporting something like that I would surely document it. So we have no clue if they really did report it or they are living to save themselves from criminal charges. It wouldn't be the first time someone lied to save themselves.

 

[marshall23]

They don't have to lie about reporting it......since none of them were mandated to report under the law.....everyone knows this.
If you want the matter investigated you don't report it to the football coach,the athletic director and the vice president of the college. You go to the agencies that JM and Dr. D knew well in Centre County.

 

[WeR0206]

Originally posted by marshall23:
They don't have to lie about reporting it......since none of them were mandated to report under the law.....everyone knows this.
If you want the matter investigated you don't report it to the football coach,the athletic director and the vice president of the college. You go to the agencies that JM and Dr. D knew well in Centre County.

Exactly!

IF MM really was certain in 2001 that CSA/molestation was occurring and IF he really did view Schultz as "the police" then why didn't MM/JM ever ask Schultz why no one from UPPD ever came to get MM's written statement?? Surely MM/JM understood that for an actual LE investigation to take place MM would have to make a written statement to police...but nope...NEVER happened until 9 YEARS later when LE had to COME TO HIM.

IF MM really was certain in 2001 that CSA/molestation was occurring, when Curley called MM to follow up with him and tell him their action plan (which didn't include a UPPD officer getting MM's statement or JS being arrested, etc.), why didn't MM express dissatisfaction or say he felt MORE needed to be done?

Here's the testimony from the 12/16/11 prelim to back up my statements:


Pg. 82: MM states TC told him he would look into it and follow up with him and MM states that TC DID in fact follow up with him. Also, MM can't remember whether or not TC asked him any clarifying questions during the meeting.


Pg. 83: Q: When you were with Mr. Curley did you say to him - and this was ten days later?


A: Yes


Q: Did you say to him I think we should call the police?


A: No, I would not have said that to him, no


Q: And, in fact, that was consistent, you never said it to anybody in those 10 to 12 days, right?

A: No. sitting right next to Mr. Curley in that meeting in my mind is the police. I want to make that clear.
I mean, that's the person on campus who the police reports to, just so you know


Q: I'm sure Mr. Farrell will follow up with you on that.


Pg. 85: MM never once saw JS around the program with a child since the 2001 incident. Also, when TC followed up with MM by telephone to tell him this is what we've done and what we've decided to do, MM did NOT dispute or oppose or say that they needed to do more.
Does the above sound like that actions/reactions of someone who was certain a kid was being abused?? Hell no. IMO the only way it makes ANY sense is if MM tried to play revisionist history in 2010 when he finally spoke to LE by telling them he saw and reported a 5 alarm fire when in reality he saw and reported a 2 alarm fire.

IOW in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was weirded out and felt it was over the line, then when LE finally tracked him down in 2010 he tells a completely different story of "I was certain JS was sodomizing the boy" thus making NO ONE'S actions in 2001 make ANY sense.

This post was edited on 4/3 11:13 AM by WeR0206

This post was edited on 4/3 11:15 AM by WeR0206

 

[bdgan]

You're not missing anything

I don't think that MM would have gone to his dad and to Joe if he wasn't concerned but I don't think he was sure about what he saw. He didn't want to make false accusations so he soft peddled his story. Later he was pressured by the AG and he embellished his story. At that point he was in over his head and we are where we are.

 

[marshall23]

Re: You're not missing anything

great summary and the only thing that makes sense.

 

[OaktonDave]

Originally posted by WeR0206:

IOW in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was weirded out and felt it was over the line, then when LE finally tracked him down in 2010 he tells a completely different story of "I was certain JS was sodomizing the boy" thus making NO ONE'S actions in 2001 make ANY sense.

This post was edited on 4/3 11:13 AM by WeR0206

This post was edited on 4/3 11:15 AM by WeR0206

This is the only hypothesis that I have seen that makes the actions of everyone involved make sense. I'm open to alternative reasonable explanations, but this is the only one I have seen to this point. MM now talks like he saw a house fully engulfed in flames, but in 2001, he behaved like he smelled smoke and thought it was stronger than what one would get from a neighbor's fireplace chimney.

 

[Doc-M]

Remember, we are discussing what MM saw in the mirror in two seconds! MM continually exaggerated and embellished what he saw, his story changed. A good attorney is going to break him.

 

[pnnylion]

Originally posted by Doc-M:

Remember, we are discussing what MM saw in the mirror in two seconds! MM continually exaggerated and embellished what he saw, his story changed. A good attorney is going to break him.

+1

 

[NittPicker]

I've read that the grand jury which issued the indictment isn't the same grand jury which heard the testimony. That may not seem like a big deal but it really is. The initial grand jury was able to see and hear the witnesses and experience the nuance of communication which can't be felt by reading a transcript. For example, Joe haters point to the "It was a sexual nature" comment as if it proves something. The full remark was something to the effect of, "It was a sexual nature. I don't know what you would call it." The second sentence is contradictory to the first and reading them together really doesn't make any sense. The first grand jury could listen and actually understand the remark in a way the second grand jury couldn't. The nuances of Joe's speech have been discussed here many times so I won't beat that dead horse. It's too bad there isn't an audio recording of the grand jury testimony. Maybe there is and nobody is allowed to hear it which wouldn't surprise me considering how shady so much of the court proceedings have been.