Is Scott Paterno changing his mind?

[Trey Suevos]

Interesting.

Scott in 2013:
Scott to John Ziegler: "...if you air a minute of an interview with Jerry either defending himself or trying to discredit Mike McQueary on a website that has my last name on it.. I would have to distance myself from it."

Scott last week on Twitter:
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno · May 22
Interesting in mentioning MM's testimony that they fail to point out that the "Not Guilty's" came from his testimony. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/05/21/4759788/tim-curley-gary-schultz-lose-in.html…

 

[crazytoadie]

Interesting.

Scott in 2013:
Scott to John Ziegler: "...if you air a minute of an interview with Jerry either defending himself or trying to discredit Mike McQueary on a website that has my last name on it.. I would have to distance myself from it."

Scott last week on Twitter:
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno · May 22
Interesting in mentioning MM's testimony that they fail to point out that the "Not Guilty's" came from his testimony. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/05/21/4759788/tim-curley-gary-schultz-lose-in.html…

The not guilty verdicts weren't necessarily due to MM's testimony, but rather because the AG overcharged Sandusky in that instance. The AG purported that things happened that MM never testified that happened. The jury in essence believed what MM testified to but not everything that the prosecution claimed. If the jury had found a not guilty that contradicted MM's testimony then Scott's point might be well taken, but that's not how it happened.

Furthermore, only one of the not guilty verdicts was the Victim 2 episode MM witnessed. The other two were with victims 5 and 6. Charges were also dismissed in the victim 4 and 7.

 

[KSLion]

The not guilty verdicts weren't necessarily due to MM's testimony, but rather because the AG overcharged Sandusky in that instance. The AG purported that things happened that MM never testified that happened. The jury in essence believed what MM testified to but not everything that the prosecution claimed. If the jury had found a not guilty that contradicted MM's testimony then Scott's point might be well taken, but that's not how it happened.

If memory serves, Sandusky was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated indecent assault based upon McQueary's testimony.

 

[NittPicker]

Interesting.

Scott in 2013:
Scott to John Ziegler: "...if you air a minute of an interview with Jerry either defending himself or trying to discredit Mike McQueary on a website that has my last name on it.. I would have to distance myself from it."

Scott last week on Twitter:
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno · May 22
Interesting in mentioning MM's testimony that they fail to point out that the "Not Guilty's" came from his testimony. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/05/21/4759788/tim-curley-gary-schultz-lose-in.html…

The tweet mentions nothing about Ziegler nor does it defend Jerry or discredit MM. It's a huge stretch to imply Scott has changed his mind on anything.

 

[marshall23]

I find it difficult to accept MM's ever evolving testimony. He seems to remember more details as time passes.......like so many things in this case, it doesn't seem logical.

 

[LundyPSU]

I think that Scott has questioned Mike's testimony previously...or at least tried to clarify it

 

[Evan Ceg]

I find it difficult to accept MM's ever evolving testimony. He seems to remember more details as time passes.......like so many things in this case, it doesn't seem logical.

In what sense has McQueary's testimony "evolved" since the Sandusky trial? Sandusky was convicted of four of five counts of sexual assault involving Victim #2 based on McQueary's testimony. I'm not aware that McQueary has made any subsequent public statements about what he witnessed, but perhaps I missed something.

 

[captony]

The not guilty verdicts weren't necessarily due to MM's testimony, but rather because the AG overcharged Sandusky in that instance. The AG purported that things happened that MM never testified that happened. The jury in essence believed what MM testified to but not everything that the prosecution claimed. If the jury had found a not guilty that contradicted MM's testimony then Scott's point might be well taken, but that's not how it happened.

Furthermore, only one of the not guilty verdicts was the Victim 2 episode MM witnessed. The other two were with victims 5 and 6. Charges were also dismissed in the victim 4 and 7.

That's one way of looking at it, but JS was found guilty on charges in the janitor incident & there was no victim/no witness/no date/no time. If a jury can cast guilty verdicts with only hear say testimony, then the argument can be made that MM's story wasn't convincing enough to garner charges on all the counts.

 

[mbahses]

This jury wanted to get out of Dodge as quickly as possible, and not be painted as enablers.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Interesting.

Scott in 2013:
Scott to John Ziegler: "...if you air a minute of an interview with Jerry either defending himself or trying to discredit Mike McQueary on a website that has my last name on it.. I would have to distance myself from it."

Scott last week on Twitter:
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno · May 22
Interesting in mentioning MM's testimony that they fail to point out that the "Not Guilty's" came from his testimony. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/05/21/4759788/tim-curley-gary-schultz-lose-in.html…

Although it took some time, "Jimmy 3 Nuts" got his wish and you are now chasing your tails like a circus act. His original post indicates a lack of reading comprehension but you all missed it (well, mostly all). Scott's "last tweet" actually lends credit to MM's testimony as it resulted in at least one charge being dropped. MM also testified that he never used the words "intercourse" or "rape" when relaying his story to Joe.

Good ole Jimmy 3 Nuts got his wish. Carry on Nitt-Pickers and keep parsing phrases. Just to be clear "NittPicker" was totally "on point" whereas the remainders were "pissing up a rope".

 

[mbahses]

Although it took some time, "Jimmy 3 Nuts" got his wish and you are now chasing your tails like a circus act. His original post indicates a lack of reading comprehension but you all missed it (well, mostly all). Scott's "last tweet" actually lends credit to MM's testimony as it resulted in at least one charge being dropped. MM also testified that he never used the words "intercourse" or "rape" when relaying his story to Joe.

Good ole Jimmy 3 Nuts got his wish. Carry on Nitt-Pickers and keep parsing phrases.

Jimmy 3 Nuts? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Who's that?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

The original poster!

 

[Trey Suevos]

It's a huge stretch to imply Scott has changed his mind on anything.

A stretch? Not at all.

In the first quote, Scott says he'll distance himself from any attempts to discredit McQueary.

In the second, he takes it upon himself to do the discrediting, even to the point of, at best misstating the facts, and at worst, misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Trey Suevos]

The original poster!

+1 for Jimmy 3 Nuts. I like it.

 

[no1lion99]

A stretch? Not at all.

In the first quote, Scott says he'll distance himself from any attempts to discredit McQueary.

In the second, he takes it upon himself to do the discrediting, even to the point of, at best misstating the facts, and at worst, misrepresenting the facts.

He does not discredit anything Mike says. He is saying the jury didn't feel it met the crime of IDSI. He doesn't at all say Mike is lying about what he saw/heard.

 

[mdahmus]

That's one way of looking at it, but JS was found guilty on charges in the janitor incident & there was no victim/no witness/no date/no time. If a jury can cast guilty verdicts with only hear say testimony, then the argument can be made that MM's story wasn't convincing enough to garner charges on all the counts.

McQueary's testimony was believed 100%. He said he did not see proof of X; he thought X was happening; he could even be relatively sure X was happening, but if he didn't see proof of X and said so, they needed to find Sandusky not guilty on that count, and they did.

 

[Trey Suevos]

Scott's "last tweet" actually lends credit to MM's testimony .../QUOTE]

LOL

 

[crazytoadie]

That's one way of looking at it, but JS was found guilty on charges in the janitor incident & there was no victim/no witness/no date/no time. If a jury can cast guilty verdicts with only hear say testimony, then the argument can be made that MM's story wasn't convincing enough to garner charges on all the counts.

That argument is nonsensical. The charge found not guilty of was involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, which would have required penetration of the rectum. MM testified that he did not witness penetration so of course he isn't going to convince them that he saw penetration. Its not a matter of convincing the jury to believe what he inferred to have happened because he flat out testified that he never saw what the prosecution claimed he saw. If he said that he saw penetration and they found not guilty on that count then your argument would be spot on.