The presentment didn't say "he believed," it says "he saw." There is a huge difference--hopefully enough difference to justify professional disciplinary action against whichever prosecutor(s) was responsible.
Eliminating threads
- Thread starter roswelllion
- Start date
The presentment didn't say "he believed," it says "he saw." There is a huge difference--hopefully enough difference to justify professional disciplinary action against whichever prosecutor(s) was responsible.
If you read McQueary's testimony as set forth in the PCR Petition you will see that he first stated he peaked into the shower and describes what he saw; Sandusky directly behind the boy in what appeared to be a sexual position. He concludes that he made eye contact with the boy. All of this testimony supports the use of the verb "saw" and based on what he saw he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy.
There is virtually no chance that this provides any basis for disciplinary proceedings.
I disagree. MM did not see Sandusky sodomizing the boy and that is what the false GJP said. I believe the OAG knew this as evidenced by MM's Dec. 14, 2010 testimony to the Grand Jury where he unequivocally stated that he didn't see penetration. This should provide the basis for disciplinary proceedings especially in light of MM's other testimony and actions. That being said, I will not be surprised if nothing comes of it given what the OAG has already gotten away with in this case.
I believe that if Judge Cleland has any sense of objectivity at all, he has no choice but to take a closer look at the merits of Sandusky's PCRA to determine if a new trial is warranted. The Commonwealth's response is due by Sept. 1 and I think they will be hard pressed to convince the Judge that the PCRA is wrong.
MM stated he believed what he saw was JS sodomizing a child and the prosecution was completely within the bounds of the law in putting in the GJP.
Last edited:
Yes; he saw nothing. All of this is a charade because Mike actually saw nothing that night.
Can you be any more stupid?
You have me topped. He heard sounds and "thought" something happened. Back to your daily activity...
Not that I'm defending Jerry but you lost me.
I doubt those on here defending Jerry even know what this means.
Even with that change in wording in the GJP, I don't think anything changes for JS or PSU.
I will also ask again, why didn't Jack Raykovitz testify as a defense witness. If Jerry was innocent, then Jack would have been the best defense witness....easily could claim how many kids Jerry helped, there were no allegations of this behavior in Jerry's past, etc etc
Maybe or maybe not. I know that I was horrified when the GJP originally came out. At the trial, I thought JS was guilty as hell and was getting what he deserved. After the Freeh Report came out and the NCAA sanctions took place, I starting thinking that something didn't seem right. After looking into things a little closer, it became apparent to me that something was substantially wrong with the story. I am now convinced that MM did not witness a sexual assault in the shower and that the false GJP was extremely prejudicial. If the GJP had been factual then I believe that Joe Paterno would likely not have been fired. I also believe that the entire scandal would have been toned down at least a couple of notches and that JS may have had a chance at a fair trial. The bottom line is that we don't know what would have happened if the GJP had been factual. This is why I believe that we need a new trial.
Your example is not even close to a good analogy. Your example would be the equivalent of Mike McQueary seeing Sandusky alone in the same room with a child. He saw and heard much more than that.
A better analogy would be that you witnessed somebody wearing a mask sneaking up to your back door with a screw driver trying to jimmy your lock and you reporting to the Police that you saw somebody trying to rob your house. Although you did not witness the person robbing your house, it is reasonable to believe that he was not there to fix your television set.
Mike McQueary witnessed and heard things that reasonably led him to conclude that Jerry Sandusky was molesting a child. The mere fact that he did not see the penetration does not mean he did not "witness" child molestation. It only means that there is wiggle room for Sandusky to argue that there was no penetration. No evidence was presented to challenge Mike McQueary's conclusion (which Jerry Sandusky could have done by testifying). Thus, the reasonable conclusion was left unchallenged.
I would venture to guess that in child molestation cases, there are few examples where somebody actually provides third party witness testimony like Mike McQueary. The fact that Mike McQueary's testimony exists puts this case over the top. It provides validation to the uncontested testimony of numerous victims that I do not believe is often seen in these cases.
It sickens me when I visit the McAndrew Board (a board that I have been frequenting since the earliest Plotit days) that I have to see discussions by the fringe lunitic "Free Jerry" crowd about how Jerry Sandusky, a convicted serial child molester, was treated unfairly. IMO, the McAndrew Board was once the top college football board around. Posts that make these fringe arguments have to be eliminated if this board ever wants to rise to the level that it once was. The fringe posts are slowly but surely shaping and reshaping this board's reputation. I feel slimy when I read these posts and I feel even more slimy when I feel the need to respond and have to use words like "penetration" and "serial child molester." I come here to discuss PSU Football, not to be smacked in the face with fringe opinions about a serial child molester.
I know people will say that I do not have to open these fringe posts or respond to them and 90% of the time I do not do so. However, when I see the board monitors moving in the right direction by eliminating these fringe posts and people attacking the Board Monitors for doing so, I will post, and continue to post, in support of the Board Monitors.
Last edited:
MCQueray witnessed nothing, "thought" he heard sounds, all through a door, steam, running water and a 2 second at most glance in a mirror.
Calling bullshit on it.
I found a very interesting Jan. 17, 2012 article by Walter C. Uhler titled "Three False Assertions by the Grand Jury turned the Press and Public against Joe Paterno and Penn State." IMO, Uhler makes a very convincing argument that the OAG's GJP missed the mark in at least 3 places which resulted in a false narrative that lives in the Press and Public to this very day. Where is it wrong?
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
let's not forget "My Own Guys are Molesting kids in Thailand but who cares" Noonan and his well timed press conference . . . AFTER the OAG had said (despite the GJP) that Joe was not under investigation, and was considered a cooperating witness . . .
Heres the thing. In your analogy the person was suspicious enough to call the police and make a statement, file report, etc.. In MM's situation he never once called UPPD and never once asked the PSU admins why no one from UPPD ever came to get his statement, he never once expressed dissatisfaction to the admins and never told them MORE needed to be done outside of confronting JS, revoking his guest privileges, and informing TSM. So if MM was so certain in 2001 that abuse/molestation was occurring how do you explain the above?
If in 2001 MM was weirded out but wasn't really sure what JS and the boy were doing then the above makes perfect sense.
MM himself said he'd call the police for a burglary but not for what he saw that night. He said he considered calling the police then decided against it. Again, how in the world does that make any sense if he was certain abuse/molestation was occurring??
Peoples actions in 2001 simply dont support MM's 2010 version of things.
That may have been what happened internally but as far as the public knew TSM allowed JS to retire a hero of the community .....instead of a person who lost his clearance to work with kids, which was the real reason he was let go. What's your point?
TSM blatantly mislead the public about why JS "retired".
"You think in their charging document, they are going to say MM saw JS in the shower, heard a few things, and wasn't sure what he saw? " That is, in the end, what McQueary said. "Believed" does not equate to "saw," and whoever wrote the GJ presentment knows it. McQueary also testified in the Curley/Schultz hearing that he did not see what he believed to be a crime reportable to the police.
There was definitely a breakdown in 2001. I believe the breakdown was that nobody could bring themselves to believe that Jerry Sandusky was a serial child molester.
That does not change the fact that Mike McQueary's testimony went virtually uncontested at trial. Jerry Sandusky chose not to testify and deny Mike McQueary's testimony. His legal team obviously did a cost / benefit analysis with respect to Sandusky's testinomy and came to the conclusion that it was better that he not testify. Let that sink in for a moment. His legal team decided to let an eye witness who claims to have seen Jerry Sandusky molesting a child stand uncontested rather than let Jerry Sandusky testify. We can only imagine what they were worried about.
Jerry received a fair trial and got what he deserved.
If both Sandusky (more than 6 feet) and the boy (5 feet) were standing as McQueary reported, penetration could not have occurred. The necessary parts would have been at different heights (http://schoolworkhelper.net/male-female-sexual-anatomy-function-and-purpose/) unless Sandusky got the boy to stand on a box or something. As for "wiggle room," if penetration could not have occurred, and McQueary could not testify that he somehow saw Sandusky manage to achieve it in some manner, the bottom line is that the GJ presentment lied.
By the way, it's getting even worse. I looked at part of the transcript from Sandusky's trial, and one of the victims testified that an attorney approached him before he testified, and that he signed a paper to have that attorney represent him. Another had his civil attorney ($$$$$$$) present when he was questioned, and possibly led on, by two investigators who later told conflicting stories in court.
I am sure that Mike Nifong and Scott Harshbarger (the attorney who probably railroaded the Amiraults) also would have preferred censorship of discussions of this nature. Things that live under rocks don't enjoy the light of day. The fact that you do not want the objective evidence discussed either says something about your character, as does the fact that you hide behind an anonymous screen name when you post this material.
Last edited:
What he told investigators in 2011 and what actions he took in 2001 seem to be pretty damn inconsistent.
So, Mike witnessed JS sodomizing a young boy, and he...fled the scene? Never once called the cops, told his dad and Dranov and THEY never once called the cops.
The actions taken in 2001 during the first HOUR after what Mike claimed to have witnessed (in 2011) are wholly inconsistent...unless Mike was a complete coward and his dad and Dranov were the originators of the cover-up.
You are mischaracterizing the people who do not believe the trial was fair as the "Free Jerry" crowd. This is not a fringe argument IMO, but a well reasoned analysis of some of the very questionable OAG actions that took place. I am not convinced that you have a good handle on the facts of the case. If you did, you could try to rebut the arguments made that the trial was unfair. Alternatively, you could ignore the posts and just discuss PSU football.
I don't see people attacking the monitors. It is a BWI discussion board and BWI establishes the guidelines for what topics are acceptable and not acceptable to post. I believe the monitors realize that these are not fringe arguments that will go away by eliminating the posts. IMO, these are discussions that are inherently related to Penn State football and will continue well into the future.
Here is what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz hearing. The prosecutor(s) who wrote the presentment therefore lied about him actually seeing, as opposed to suspecting, a criminal act.
...
Q You know the town of State College has uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry firearms?
A Yes.
Q You never saw Mr. Schultz in a uniform, did you?
A Not in a uniform.
Q Never saw him carrying a firearm?
A Not a firearm, no.
Q And during your time at Penn State, did you ever have occasion to report -- let’s put aside this incident. Did you ever have occasion to report any incident to either the Penn State Police or the State College Police?
A No, I’ve never reported incidents.
Q Never had your car broken into?
A No, sir.
Q Or home burglarized?
A No.
Q But had that happened, it would have been one of these uniformed police officers you reported it to, right?
A Yes, for a home burglary, yes, not for Jerry Sandusky doing what he was doing to a boy, just to address your point.
Q Well, tell us why would you not report that.
A Because it was delicate in nature in my opinion, sir, and I tried to use my best judgment.
Q And, as you say, your best judgment included leaving the boy with Mr. Sandusky,right?
A Yes, I was sure the act was over.
Q You don’t know what happened after you left?
A I do not know what happened for sure after I left.
Q Never made any effort to find that boy, did you?
A I did not. [Joe Paterno was, however, supposed to have tried to find the boy according to Lanny Davis, whom the Trustees hired as their spin doctor after they fired Paterno.]
Q Did you ever ask anyone at the Second Mile about a boy who might have been with Mr. Sandusky on this night? [Tim Curley did, but was nonetheless accused of participating in a coverup.]
...
Q You know the town of State College has uniformed police officers?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Carry firearms?
A Yes.
Q You never saw Mr. Schultz in a uniform, did you?
A Not in a uniform.
Q Never saw him carrying a firearm?
A Not a firearm, no.
Q And during your time at Penn State, did you ever have occasion to report -- let’s put aside this incident. Did you ever have occasion to report any incident to either the Penn State Police or the State College Police?
A No, I’ve never reported incidents.
Q Never had your car broken into?
A No, sir.
Q Or home burglarized?
A No.
Q But had that happened, it would have been one of these uniformed police officers you reported it to, right?
A Yes, for a home burglary, yes, not for Jerry Sandusky doing what he was doing to a boy, just to address your point.
Q Well, tell us why would you not report that.
A Because it was delicate in nature in my opinion, sir, and I tried to use my best judgment.
Q And, as you say, your best judgment included leaving the boy with Mr. Sandusky,right?
A Yes, I was sure the act was over.
Q You don’t know what happened after you left?
A I do not know what happened for sure after I left.
Q Never made any effort to find that boy, did you?
A I did not. [Joe Paterno was, however, supposed to have tried to find the boy according to Lanny Davis, whom the Trustees hired as their spin doctor after they fired Paterno.]
Q Did you ever ask anyone at the Second Mile about a boy who might have been with Mr. Sandusky on this night? [Tim Curley did, but was nonetheless accused of participating in a coverup.]
Glancing over them quickly, I see nothing wrong with his 3 assertions. What's your point?
Yes, and that breakdown occurred OUTSIDE of PSU at TSM (child care experts) who was required to look into any and all incident reports re: one of THEIR employees no matter how benign and who were also mandatory reporters.
MM's testimony went virtually uncontested b/c the only people who could contest it (C/S) were also indicted....how convenient! Those people still haven't even sniffed a court room b/c the state knows their charade will get exposed once they do see a court room.
There is testimony from Dr. D, JM, and even JR that all support C/S/S's version of the story...they all testified that in 2001 a PSU GA saw JS taking an inappropriate shower/horesplay with a kid that made the GA uncomfortable.. that's it. None of them mention MM being certain abuse/molestation was occurring.
Note this excerpt from the 12/16/11 prelim which I think highlights the lack of corroboration for MM's story:
Pg. 68: Roberto asks MM what he told Dr. D, the state objects due to irrelevance and it's of course sustained. These are perjury charges we're talking about...how is that irrelevant??
Pg. 69: Roberto states she wants to hear what MM told Dr. D. to see if it corroborates what MM told TC, there has to be a 2nd witness to corroborate MM's statements. Again, the Judge doesn't agree and the objection is sustained.
Roberto then goes on the record at the bottom of page 69 and says"For the record note my objection, and for the record, I mean, I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony."
Attorney Farrell joins the objection.
******************************************************************************************
If MM's 2010 version of the story was true why is the state so afraid of hearing MM repeat what he told Dr. D??? Yet the state wanted nothing to do with MM recapping exactly what he told the trained medical doctor/person trained in how to report suspected child abuse...hmmm. The state immediately objected when Roberto tried to get MM to repeat what he told Dr. D (Roberto knows that Dr. D's testimony does NOT support MM's 2010 claim). If Dr. D's recollection matched MM's the state would have no problems with it, in fact they would encourage it because it would corroborate MM and help bolster their star witness...but nope... That tells me a lot.
it is kind of hilarious you posted that. if only there were a few admins from PSU who could have testified to exactly that at Sandusky's trial.
seriously though, go back and re read McQueary's testimony. especially the part where McGettin is leading the witness so blatantly, and the defense is offering NO OBJECTIONS, that even Cleland can't take it any more and tells the prosecutor to knock it off
My point is that the GJP was false, that it caused the Press and the Public to turn against Joe Paterno and Penn State, and that it resulted in the patently unfair trial of Jerry Sandusky.
BTW, I don't recall seeing a reply to my question to you of what you view are the right circumstances for vigilante justice.
Which brings us back to why this thread is entirely appropriate for this forum, noting the enormous harm the GJP did to Penn State and the reputation of its football program--the one that demands that the players earn their diplomas rather than play football, if it comes down to that choice.
Because he's a coward and Sandusky was considered a Saint?
8 victims testifying at trial goes completely ignored by you and your ilk every single day. Do you really think it's a stretch MM, and those he spoke with, would be influenced by Sandusky's status?
They didn't exactly contact each other but the investigators who questioned Victim 4 pretty much did the same thing for them. In addition, one of the victims said he was approached by an attorney (rather than the other way around) to represent him on a contingency ($$$$$$) basis.
L.T. Young.....That explanation/theory simply doesn't make sense. Are JM and Dr. D also cowards? Why didn't they do anything if MM was too scared/cowardly but was certain/thought a kid was getting raped?? It also doesn't explain why MM never even so much as made an anonymous call to UPPD or Childline if he really was a coward/feared for his job for some reason.
The 8 victims testifying at trial have nothing to do with MM/V2 (which is the discussion at hand) since V2 was supposedly never found and never testified to corroborate MM's 2010 version. Pointing out the deficiencies in MM's 2010 story and how it doesn't align with anyone's actions in 2001 has nothing to do with whether or not JS abused the other victims so I'm not even sure why you bring them up, nice strawman though!
Either MM, Dr. D, and JM are all cowards/involved in a cover up (there is ZERO evidence, testimony, or 2001 actions to support this theory)......
OR in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing but was weirded out/uncomfortable and felt someone at PSU needed to be told (this is supported by the actions of EVERYONE involved in 2001 and it's also supported by the testimony of C/S/S/Joe/Dr. D/JM/and JR). Later in 2010 MM plays revisionist history in his statement to OAG by saying he was certain abuse/molestation was happening thus making no one's actions in 2001 make any sense.
Again even the testimony of JM (at the 12/16/11 prelim) and Dr. D (at the JS GJ), the first two people MM spoke to that night, doesn't support MM's 2010 version so I'm not really sure how you reconcile with that....
That transcript supports the fact, which has never changed in McQueary's testimony, that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a young boy. The reason he did not contact the uniformed police was because it was "delicate in nature in his opinion." It had nothing to do with whether he had seen sodomy. In fact he testified he left after he was sure the act was over.
This transcript does nothing to support your premise.
Similar threads
