It's what he would have told them.
My life has drastically, drastically changed... my family's life has drastically changed. For what?
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It's what he would have told them.
if that IS what he told them. he would have said that. if that's what he said.
(seriously, how can anyone read Mike's rambling testimony at Sandusky's trial and think he was being 100% honest?)
Also points out the importance of quarantining AM until after the trial. AM testimony would have been cryptonite to MM's ridiculous account.
and charging Curley and Schultz to prevent them from testifying as well
He wasn't being honest. He's going to relay everything in a manner that makes him look the best. Just like everyone else.
Problem: Challenge his manliness because he admitted to leaving Sandusky alone with a boy he was abusing?
Solution: "Well, I couldn't be sure of what I saw, so that's why I didn't do more right then. I needed to figure out what I seeing."
This isn't some great hoax perpetrated by Mike McQueary. He saw Sandusky behaving as a pedophile behaves. Everyone knows it. The details change because he's trying to serve multiple purposes - make himself look as good as possible, let someone else handle the problem, stop Sandusky, etc.
Someday we'll know the truth. It might take 25 years though.
But this will go down as one of the biggest political coverups in history.
But this will go down as one of the biggest political coverups in history.
Um, yeah...No. Zero proof of what you say outside of corrupt OAG/clueless jury.
Sandusky's words label him a pedophile. We can obviously debate whether McQueary's eyes saw enough to label him a pedophile WITHOUT other evidence.
But you really cannot debate that Sandusky is a pedophile - although it requires Sandusky's own words and an accumulation of smoke to safely conclude that he is.
Well, you're wrong. You still haven't figured out who the biggest liars are in this whole mess.
He admits to hugging a 12 year old boy, while they are both naked in the shower.
That means you are a pedophile. Simple as that.
Well, that would be applying a pretty broad definition to the word. Let me know when he admits to something that is actually against any sort of law.
Not to me, it wouldn't. I have to say, I think you make yourself look bad when you say that you can say "I hugged a naked 12 year old in the shower when we were alone" and not be a pedophile.
Yes, anything is possible....but if you told me you did that, I would never speak to you again, never let you near my kids, etc.
My life has drastically, drastically changed... my family's life has drastically changed. For what?
$12.3 Million Dollars
$12.3 Million Dollars
Don't really care. If I had kids I would be a better parent than to ever allow them to even get remotely close to a situation like that. That isn't what this is about.
This is about a scam trial by an out of control OAG, and the media's willful participation in the destruction of the rule of law.
The situation really sucks. A guy who is a pedophile nonetheless got a screwed up trial. One of the few witnesses to something that actually happened can't/won't tell the whole story or truth about what he did/didn't see. As a result innocent people have gotten smeared, undeserving people have gotten rich, and there are people who are rooting for a pedophile to get a new trial.
Rominger threw him a real curveball question at trial and asked if he put his sneakers in his locker. He couldn't recall.
It could mean that. It could just mean that he doesn't understand boundaries. At this point, I'm not convinced any of the things he did were with sexual intent. And the biggest source of my doubts stem from the manner in which this case was prosecuted. The OAG manipulated and embellished so much, I don't think anyone can honestly say they know what JS is or what he really did.
There was quite a bit of embellishment, but I think the point is still pretty clear that JS is a pedophile. He may/may not have assaulted a kid in the shower that night, but his problems go far beyond mere boundary issues. No reasonable person can dispute that. No reasonable person would want their kid left with him. No reasonable person can deny that the patterns of his behavior should have been extremely worrisome to people way before this whole thing blew up. He made it very easy for the OAG to embellish all they wanted to, in order to create a lot of collateral damage.
You may be right. I just know the OAG made a concerted effort to turn him into a monster and to try the case in the court of public opinion. They had no interest in prosecuting JS if all they could hope for was to prove he was creepy.
Imo, more troubling than the showers or nudging a leg, were the letters JS wrote to some of the boys. Basically love letters, written with the tone of a broken heart, as if from a broken-hearted young person to their recent bf or gf.
The showers and swimming and touching may be patterns and grooming, but while creepy in the context we have now, without sexual contact, those actions could maybe be argued in such a way to create reasonable doubt. The letters may fall under that category as well, but they were the additional smoke signal that convinced me there was a fire. Boundary issues and a lack of general awareness of others' perceptions is one thing, odd as those behaviors are to the majority of people, but the letters tie it all together more than any other single piece of evidence. That shows a startling lack of understanding acceptable levels of maturity vav older-younger relationships on JS's part, imo. At that point, is it a mental-illness issue? Without the victims' testimony, maybe. But if those testimonies are going to get a free pass by the defense.....
That said, none of McQ / fam, C/S/S/P, etc. in that first wave could have ever known about the letters back in 2001, and wouldn't without the evidence gathered by investigators. They may have seen smoke, but should not have been expected to proclaim it a fire..... That, of course, was Raykovitz's role.
And Harmon's. Where was Harmon in all this?? And we now know that Pa State Police and local LE knew about JS long before 2009. What was going on to stop them from acting on their suspicions and information? (We think we know, but still!)
Last edited:
Except it was more than that...and real victims testified to more than that. We'll believe the guy who was told to never shower with kids alone, said he would never do it again....and still did. The question of Jerry's innocence really isn't in question, but to a few holdouts. You have every right to be upset with the media, BoT, TSM walking, and state as it was a circus, but we can stop pretending their is a magical bullet out there for Jerry. I know a few won't, but that is what it is. LaNotta Lion.....out. boo Jerry.
You seemed to jump over the fact he had been told to stop and could not. No worries, you won't believe he is with a few others. Cheers.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
This is a handy thread - you can tell who the 'football above all else' folks are with ease.
Ummmm, no the problem is that the OAG's Presentment and Indictments don't say that Mike McQueary said he thought Sandusky was acting strangely, inappropriately and like a pedophile based on what he experienced that night....the Indicting documents list an eyewitness who SAW and would testify to SEEING the "anal-rape sexual assault of the child" as the only piece of "Direct Evidence" Probable Cause in the 2001 Case.
Mike McQueary then testified in an exculpatory manner AT-TRIAL multiple times in trials where he was called as a supposed "State Witness" that:
- The State INTENTIONALLY lied in their "33rd PA Statewide Investigating GJ Presentment" and Accompanying Indicitment Documents related to 2001 Incident when they claimed that Mike McQueary testified that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" any such thing AND that he, Mike McQueary, IN FACT testified that he DID NOT SEE or eyewitness what The State SUBSEQUENTLY claimed he did in their "33rd PA SWIGJ" and Accompanying Indictment Documents in his testimony to the "30th PA Statewide Investigating Grand Jury"!
- Mike McQueary therefore TESTIFIED AT TRIAL that he could not be the EYEWITNESS claimed by The State (i.e., the corrupt PA OAG) in their Indicting Documents as the "Probable Cause Evidence" related to the 2001 Incident forwarded against 4 SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS and accounting for over 30 Indictments, because he, Mike McQueary, testified to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what The State is claiming when he testified to the GJ - that he, Mike McQueary DID NOT SEE OR TELL ANYONE THAT EVENING WHILE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS, or subsequently "after-the-fact", that he saw and eyewitnessed the criminal sexual assault anal-rape of the child, so again he can't be the "Eyewitness" The State is referring to in THEIR INDICTING DOCUMENTS as the singular "Probable Cause" Direct Evidence in their Indictments for over 30 Indictments against 4 Separate Individuals!
- The State (i.e., the corrupt OAG writers of the Fraudulent "33rd SWIGJ & Accompanying Indictments") FAILED TO EVER PRODUCE the SINGULAR "Probable Cause" Direct Evidence cited in over 30 Indictments against 4 Separate Individuals related to the 2001 Incident!
- Dr. Dranov and John McQueary also testified at-trial in a manner that would support Mike McQueary's testimony - as did the actual GJ transcripts of MM, JM and Dr. D (i.e., further EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY completely discrediting The State's claims in their Indictments).
Last edited:
When I was a kid TV had a popular show,"Who Do You Trust?" The program was hosted by Johnny Carson for a period of time.
So, I wonder if this mess could be sorted out by asking."Who do you trust?"
Sandusky- Who clearly at the minimum has/had major boundary issues and after a close call with LE, continued to engage in behavior that put him at risk of being branded a pedophile. If JS is not guilty, he has no one to blame but himself for ending up in the cross hairs and prison.
MM- Empirical evidence demonstrates that what he described to Dad, Dr. Dranov, Schultz, Curley, Paterno and ultimately was related to Raykovitz didn't seem conclusive enough to contact law enforcement or child welfare agencies. It should be fair to speculate that after 10 years of working for "good people" did his own behavior put him in an untenable position with investigators?
Corbett and his staff of prosecutors/ investigators- clearly "Tom didn't want to" investigate and prosecute JS. Did his own lust for power and revenge serve as the motivation to use JS to destroy his "enemy?" In addition, If JS is one of the worst serial pedophiles ever, why did Fina and co. need to manipulate dates, times, locations and use so many fabricated stories. Why did investigators feel the need to lie under oath?
"Victims" How many victims did NOT change their stories after millions of dollars were offered? Which accounts were in fact the truth?
So, I wonder if this mess could be sorted out by asking."Who do you trust?"
Sandusky- Who clearly at the minimum has/had major boundary issues and after a close call with LE, continued to engage in behavior that put him at risk of being branded a pedophile. If JS is not guilty, he has no one to blame but himself for ending up in the cross hairs and prison.
MM- Empirical evidence demonstrates that what he described to Dad, Dr. Dranov, Schultz, Curley, Paterno and ultimately was related to Raykovitz didn't seem conclusive enough to contact law enforcement or child welfare agencies. It should be fair to speculate that after 10 years of working for "good people" did his own behavior put him in an untenable position with investigators?
Corbett and his staff of prosecutors/ investigators- clearly "Tom didn't want to" investigate and prosecute JS. Did his own lust for power and revenge serve as the motivation to use JS to destroy his "enemy?" In addition, If JS is one of the worst serial pedophiles ever, why did Fina and co. need to manipulate dates, times, locations and use so many fabricated stories. Why did investigators feel the need to lie under oath?
"Victims" How many victims did NOT change their stories after millions of dollars were offered? Which accounts were in fact the truth?
I doubt he really "saw" anything, unless he can see around corners.
In addition to being really stupid, MM is an impulsive, lying POS.
Stop what, exactly? Doing what was not illegal in '98 and what Sandusky believed was not wrong? Or doing what, in this day and age, was completely inappropriate and a lawsuit waiting to happen?
I think it is presumptuous to assume he was told not to do that out of concern for the welfare of children. I think it is more likely that he was told that for his own good. It was more concern about the appearance of impropriety than the impropriety itself.
And if I'm wrong, all the more reason JS should have been indicated. C'mon, if it was serious enough for a police officer to admonish him personally, how was it not serious enough to restrict his access to children? How is that not worse than the PSU guys passing the buck to TSM because they weren't sure what else to do? How are the people who blew the '98 investigation not blamed for what happened in 2001? They're the ones guilty of endangering children through their negligence, incompetence and cowardice!
Plenty of people made mistakes Indy. I have never said otherwise. You want to think Jerry is innocent which is fine. Have at it.
No. Verboten. You may not consider a compilation of behaviors or evidence that make the simplest explanation "JS is a pedophile".
You MUST consider each piece of evidence all by itself, and if there's any inconsistency whatsoever, or alternative theory possible, even if it involves quantum mechanics, then that piece of evidence is STRICKEN.
We weren't present when police spoke to Sandusky. Was he told never to shower with kids from TSM again or was he told not to shower with that particular child?
He would have been well served to be extremely cautious in any event.
I'm playing devil's advocate because nobody did so when it really mattered. I've never said I thought he was innocent. However, I think, at the very least, the PSU related cases are either blown out of proportion, or made up entirely. JS maintained arguably healthy relationships with both V2 and V6 up until his indictment. Neither boy ever accused JS of anything sexual. The janitor case is a complete sham. I can't believe they even threw that in there, especially now that we know that when the actual witness was asked if the man he saw was JS, he said no! So is the guy whose incident suspiciously went from '98 to summer of '01. He's the only victim who claimed a sexual advance during his fist encounter with JS and who Sandusky says he's never even met.
Either these cases were trumped up as part of the OAG's quanitity over quality strategy, or there was a concerted effort to manufacture the PSU angle here. If it's the former, JS deserves a new trial. If it's the latter, and I believe it is, that's the scandal we need to be discussing.
Utter NONSENSE and bull$hit - The State NEVER produced the ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE cited as "Probable Cause" in their over 30 Indictments related to the 2001 Incidents leveled against 4 separate individuals! The State NEVER PRODUCED an "eyewitness" who testified to "seeing" what The State claimed in their over 30 Indictments against 4 separate individuals related to 2001! Mike McQueary testified multiple times at-trial that he was not only NOT the State's claimed "eyewitness" to their Indictment Claims, but he also testified that The State - the corrupt PA OAG - INTENTIONALLY LIED in regards to his Grand Jury testimony made to the 30th PA SWIGJ, not the "33rd PA SWIGJ" - literally stating that he told the "30th SWIGJ" he testified to that he DID NOT see the State's Claims, not that he did and further stated that HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE EVER that he witnessed such a thing! (and the distinction absolutely makes a difference as the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" makes characterizations about "33rd SWIGJ Grand Jurors" regarding "Grand Juror's" opinions of Mike McQueary's testimony including subjective determinations about how they found him as a "Grand Jury" witness....Mike McQueary FACTUALLY did not testify to the "33rd SWIGJ Grand Jurors", he testified to the "30th SWIGJ Grand Jurors" which was an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GROUP OF PA CITIZENS genius!!!).
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Penn State WR target Matthew Outten releases top six
- Latest: Crusher1950
-