Read what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. He said under oath that he did not actually see something he believed reportable as a crime. This means he did not see a minor being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.
Excellent point Bill...in addition to that....
In the 12/16/11 prelim for C/S MM also testified to the following (which CONTRADICTS his statements to OAG in 2010 and GJ testimony that he was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a boy--there's a big difference between saying "I think" something happened and "I'm certain" or "I saw" something happen and this discrepancy would definitely affect the way people responded to MM's story in 2001):
Pg. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over.
They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act”.
**this testimony simply defies credulity. If you were "perfectly confident" a severe sex act between a man and child was occurring how do you consider it then NOT call the police ASAP???**
Page 72 (re: discussion with Joe)
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it
looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
**This testimony shows that Roberto was FINALLY able to get MM to admit that he wasn't sure what JS and the boy were doing in 2001, which is huge IMO. This admission is the exact OPPOSITE of what MM claimed in his 2010 OAG interview and GJ testimony...that he was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a kid in 2001 and reported it as such. The only way to be certain about something is if you actually see it. MM never saw any sex acts which the GJP claims.**
Also, in JM's cross examination at the same 12/16/11 hearing (you know, the one he couldn't remember testifying at when asked during the summer 2012 JS trial) re: MM's 2001 report JM said:
Page 151:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
**Since when is a severe sex act/certain sodomy between a man and child something that has so much grey area?
How could it possibly be described as "at least a very inappropriate action" instead of a very clearly illegal action?? The way MM spoke in his 2010 OAG interview and GJ appearances he made it VERY clear that there was ZERO grey area or room for interpretation in his story. He said he was certain JS was sodomizing the boy.
No wonder JM tried to claim he didn't remember giving this testimony...it completely blows the state's narrative out of the water**