Yes he does, he did shed light on why Curley and Schultz pled guilty and Spanier was convicted without a definitive victim. Those three's trouble did not occur because they abused a child, it occurred because a report of possible child sex abuse was reported to them (or became aware of it in Spanier's case) and did nothing with it.
Courtney's file was labled "Possible Child Abuse" and he advised that they report the incident. They did not report the incident to any LE agency or State reporting agency. We also know from AM's deposition with Amendola (if AM is to be believed), that he said nothing happened however someone did see them in the shower and reported to PSU admin that they were having sex. The latter is what gets PSU admin in trouble.
It was essential to the "Story" that the OAG concocted that PSU's C/S/S be "convicted"
of SOMETHING (I believe Criminal Jay-walking was their fall back charge if all else failed!!) because the FACTUAL evidence which SHOULD have been part of all of this was being "managed" by the abuse of PA State legal powers. How was all of this done?????
FIRST - the OAG needed to "strong-arm" desired testimonies from key observers That takes time to obtain the "incentives" which are needed to manufacture core testimonies which could be morphed into "what could have happened". After all, this entire matter is based on supposition and assumption of guilt - NOT facts.
SECOND - it was tampering with the testimonies that were obtained - changing the content of the testimonies by selectively modifying what was said into what was needed to support the "Story". All of this was media broadcasted incessantly so that the public would be sold on the Criminality of PSU "Story".
THIRD - the illegal use of the Grand Jury allowed the OAG to withhold and secure any information that would "...ruin their case..." because no one had access to that information at a time where it would have effectively exposed the insanity of the State's LEGAL case. Remember it took 3 years to put this all together - it takes time to "engineer" a case when the core of the case can not be LEGALLY supported without significant management of the facts!
FOURTH - You need complicit "insiders" to provide key components of the OAG fiction - With 3 years, the Corbett-driven political "Hit" had the time to assembled the needed "insiders'. These "insiders" provided "testimonies" which allowed the OAG to "reasonably conclude" that their "Story" could be publicly and media supported. Essential to this was "convicting" C/S/S by using illegal "Miss Daisy" statements to allow CRIMINAL issues to be flimsily alleged.
Also - two other "insiders" were required - they were Louis "the Liar for Hire" (Good buddy of Tommy Corbett and others) and the infamous OGBOT who controlled the money and public "PSU image of Guilt" necessary for this scam to work!
C/S/S took an approach that in 2000-2001 time frame (the time of PSU's "linkage" crime in the shower that Sandusky was just
unaware of the POTENTIAL legal issues that his shower habits created (refer to 1997's incident - remember these were disadvantaged youth and "distortions" of an event was always a potential for Sandusky).
The C/S/S approach was AT THE TIME 100% reasonable and LEGAL in how it reacted to a vague report given by MM. It was their reasonable conclusion that, without any evidence of criminal activity by Sandusky, a report was not only not necessary, but a potential legal threat - not from a "victim", but Sandusky. If Sandusky (a publicly image of a "Saint"
at this time) was scarred with a legal allegation which had NO KNOWN criminality PSU's threat from litigation was most likely with Sandusky's potential injury - not anything else. That is why Curley created a file "
POTENTIAL Child abuse" - because CSA was not believed to have occurred based on MM testimony. With CSA REASONABLY out of the picture, PSU only did a checkbox "due diligence" on the applicable legal requirements of a CSA event which COULD have applied based on the MM event reported.
Remember....No one in 2001 reported that what MM saw required reporting anything to police or child welfare agencies (but who knows....that MAY have happened).
It was the OAG that pushed the need to report all of this to the State and this "requirement" was based on an illegal 2007 version of a law which DID NOT APPLY in 2000-2001. All of the C/S/S convictions came based on applying a law that did not LEGALLY exist at the time of the "conviction" incident.
This is the 100% factual ENGINEERED POLITIAL HIT certification!!
Here's more evidence of the "engineering" of this "Story" - The state of PA KNEW that even PSU officially reported all of this to State Agencies, 10 years later the evidence that PSU conformed to the 2007 law would be wiped clean by PA standard data procedures.
You see the need to report was core to this case and it was "managed" by the OAG so that concrete proof that PSU handled this single (linkage) event properly.
So your statement "...
it occurred because a report of possible child sex abuse was reported to them (NOTE: This is NOT what anyone in 2001 testified as MM's observations (again this is what would apply only if you use the "modified testimony of MM stated in the presentment: "RAPE" - rational for this testimony version from MM - see #1 & 2 above) (or became aware of it in Spanier's case) and did nothing with it..."
Your statement is only valid if you believe the 2007 LEGAL requirements apply - THEY DO NOT. Since the judge CONVICTED & coerced "Plea Deals" by applying this 2007 law - it is actually a criminal act by the State and the Judge - NOT C/S/S!!!
Face it - The "Story" is just that - a LEGAL fiction - the Trials are a consistent and continuous abuse of the PA Judicial system and C/S/S conformed (actually OVER conformed) to the applicable laws at the time!! 
