Herein are images of the Perjury Hearing Testimony Transcript of Mike McQueary under oath. These are offered so no mistake or misquote can be made to alter the impact of the testimony. The Q & A is done by Mr Beemer for the prosecution, Ms Roberto for Tim Curley, and Mr Farrell for Mr Schultz. I have taken the time to give you key parts of the 250 page testimony if you don't have the time to read the whole thing.
In my view Mike McQueary makes a terrible witness for the prosecution against both Mr. Sandusky and Mssrs. Curley and Schultz. His beliefs are strong but his actual observations do not merit his beliefs.
We have 2 1 or 2 second glances and 3 claps or slaps to inform us of his rather varied and drastic conclusions of "molestation or fondling, or some kind of intercourse or something extremely sexual". The 1 to 2 second direct glance of the whole of Sandusky's backside revealed little or no motion, no view of genitals or hands, and no distress or pain from the "victim" known as victim 2 who the prosecution does not know. See if you find Mike's testimony "extremely credible".
The first Q&A involves the duration of time of Mike's observation - Two glances of 1 or 2 seconds the first through a mirror over a sink of the upper bodies and the second a direct view for 1 or 2 seconds.
All A's in the transcript segments below are Answers by Mike McQueary
So let's be clear about this - the entire time involved of direct observation of whole bodies was ONE OR TWO SECONDS a glance.
The next image tells us about these Rhythmic Slapping Sounds that preconditioned Mike to believe a sex act was in progress in the showers. This one is new to me. I did not realize the entire sex act perceived on rhythmic slapping sounds meme was based on only 3 slaps that Mike says one can mimic with hand claps.
THREE CLAPS OR SLAPS? are you kidding me? How does one get a Rhythm from 3 slaps or claps? How does one conceive sexual activity from 3 claps or slaps? Please answer that one for me.
I thought the rhythmic slapping was the most compelling observation because the actual view was only 1 or 2 seconds. I thought Mike was an ear witness to a sex act and that is what made him so certain of what he could not see.
Mike saw the backside of Sandusky obstructing the view of the boy's body in both mirror and direct views
He could not see genitals in either glance
The one or two second glance of the back seemed like a sexual position just like 3 claps seemed like sexual sounds?
Arms around the boy - who was standing unbent on his own feet. And Mike said to himself " they're in a very sexual oriented - a very sexual position?
Sandusky is over 6' and the boy's head is at his pectoral muscles. If Jerry is 6''2 that would make the boy between 4 and 4.5 feet.
There was little if any movement.
Seems like this could easily be Jerry grabbing the boy from behind to keep him from running around or falling just as easily as it could be sexual. I'm sure that's what the defense will claim because they already have in an interview.
I wonder why Mike used the word fondling? Why would he suspect sex instead of wrestling or grabbing to stop a fall as easily as something like fondling? Reasonable doubt is quite clear with all these options that Mike offers.
Despite being unable to see hands in the 1 or 2 second glance Mike describes it as fondling, molesting and extremely sexual? This isn't a smorgasbord - if those three options are available why not non-sex options. That's reasonable doubt.
This admission of not being 100% sure makes reasonable doubt a certainty and makes Mike's testimony as the only witness in the Victim 2 charges useless. Mike's testimony would be so much more credible if he gave some reason for not thinking this was horseplay or wrestling or grabbing to stop a fall or running.
i can't bear getting more graphic but this is so important to everyone's reputation and the whole case involving PSU and Joe. The defense will get very graphic and Mike will not be able to justify his beliefs beyond doubt.
Clear to him that it looked like intercourse in 1 or 2 seconds with no movement? But not 100% sure
Seeing no penetration or insertion or hearing any complaining I would be way less than certain about something as violent as anal rape of a 10 year old by a very big man. That's got to hurt - really hurt. Not just emotionally and psychologically but physically.
A small 10 year old boy being subjected to anal rape by a 6 foot plus 200 pound plus adult experiencing no pain?
So we are supposed to believe if the Media, a large portion of the public, and Paterno, Curley or Schultz informed that a graduate assistant that caught a 1 or 2 second glance after hearing 3 slaps would believe a crime had been committed if the truth about Mike's testimony were out there?
Do you believe that?
Remember the prosecution's written Grand Jury Presentment described this testimony this way:
He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the Graduate Assistant put the sneakers in his locker he saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught." "He testified in the Grand Jury in December of 2010. The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistants testimony to be extremely credible."Do you find Mike's testimony merits this description as a FINDING OF FACT? Would not a more accurate description of Mike's testimony be:
He then heard 3 slapping sounds he believed to be of sexual activity. As he put sneakers in his locker he got a 1 or 2 second glance through a mirror above a sink of the upper bodies of Sandusky and a boy. He moved forward for a better view of another 1 or 2 seconds and saw the backside of Sandusky and part of a boy naked with hands against the wall. Though there was little or no movement, no yelling or screaming or painful expression and he could not observe hands or genitals, on the basis of this 1 or 2 second glance of Sandusky's back, Mr McQueary believed he was observing molestation, or fondling, or intercourse of some kind or something extremely sexual. And we find this witness to be less than credible because even he admits to being less than 100% certain.I ask that you read this testimony and ask yourself if you were informed by these answers to your questions about the night of March 1, 2002 would you believe something extremely sexual occurred?
So Mike believes he witnessed a crime but he failed to report it to police or child services and his father and close friend Dr. Dranov did not suggest he report it to police. And he did not convince Joe Paterno that it should be reported to police nor did he convince Mr. Curley or Mr. Schultz. I am not surprised after reading his testimony.
After being sure he had seen a sexual assault crime Mike went upstairs to his office to call his father leaving the boy in the shower room naked with Sandusky. He did not even go back to the locker room to see if they were still in the building 10 minutes later after the call as he left the building. What kind of man does that? How is that making sure it stopped? At one time I believed Mike to be stunned and shocked into inaction but aware enough to make sure it stopped. Now I wonder.
Isn't that odd that a muscular young football coach so convinced of extremely sexual behavior would leave a 10 year old victim with his alleged attacker and not even bother to check if they had left the building?
Isn't it odd that his own father would not suggest he call the police or go back to make certain the boy was safe?
Isn't it odd that Dr Dranov would advise him not to call the police?
Or did Mike fail to tell them the same terrible conclusions he made at the perjury hearing?
Knowing that Jerry Sandusky is at that time the founder of a respected charity and foster father of six would you feel comfortable subjecting him to a child services or police investigation based on 3 slapping sounds, a 1 or 2 second glance of the backs, no view of hands or genitals, no yelling or pain, and a witness who left the boy with his alleged attacker and did not call police himself or convince his father or his father's friend Dr. Dranov to call police?
The only thing in Mike's testimony that merits any investigation is his "belief"? That belief involves molesting, fondling, some kind of intercourse, or something extremely sexual but it's the basis for that belief that would cause me as a rational person to completely doubt his conclusions drawn from the facts of his actual observation.
If Mike, his father, Dr Dranov and Joe Paterno heard this testimony and did not find it credible enough to call police why would we expect Curley or Schultz to think that was advisable?
I would be quite content to justify NOT reporting this flimsy "evidence" to another authority because Mike did not witness any crime. He jumped to conclusions based on observations he himself describes as far less than obvious and in some cases contradictory to reason. Three slaps and a glance aren't much to go on Mike.
Taken as a whole this is terrible testimony for the prosecution. The actual observation is a short glance. The rhythmic slapping sounds of sexual activity are 3 claps. The key witness is so unconcerned he leaves a helpless victim with his attacker. And in the end he sees nothing but little movement from the glance at the back of Sandusky.
And to top it off we have no victim 2. - Can anyone make a case for bringing the victim2 charges to trial knowing that this testimony under oath will be completely picked apart by the defense? If you don't see reasonable doubt in this right now without a defense lawyer tearing into the witness I would be completely surprised. These charges will never be pursued and Mike McQueary will never see the witness stand. I would bet almost anything on that end to this sorry mess that ended up being called the Penn State Sex Scandal. The scandal here is the prosecution's Grand Jury Presentment and the press release by the Attorney General excerpts shown below:
Attorney General Kelly and PA State Police Commissioner Noonan issue statements regarding Jerry Sandusky sex crimes investigation
HARRISBURG - Attorney General Linda Kelly and Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan today issued the following statements concerning the ongoing Jerry Sandusky sex crimes investigation:
Equally significant, however, is the role that several top Penn State University administrators, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President of Business and Finance Gary Schultz, played in this matter, allegedly failing to report suspected child abuse and later providing false testimony and false statements to the grand jury that was investigating this case.
The incident which occurred in 2002 at Lasch Hall where Sandusky was seen committing a sexual assault on a young boy of about ten years of age, was reported to University officials by a graduate assistant who happened to be in the building late one Friday evening.
Sandusky was not seen committing a sexual assault
Those officials, to whom it was reported, did not report the incident to law enforcement or any child protective agency, and their inaction likely allowed a child predator to continue to victimize children for many more years.
The grand jury heard some very graphic and compelling testimony from key witnesses in this case - including the graduate assistant who told them what he saw in the shower and Penn State football coach Joe Paterno-- men who saw or heard about the sexual assault of that young boy in the football locker room and reported that incident to top administrators at the university.
Mike's testimony of actual observation is not compelling - only his beliefs not in sync with his observations
The grand jury also heard testimony from others at the university, including the defendants, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz, who are now charged with making false statements about what they knew, making statements that were not credible and failing to report suspected child abuse.
In this case, it is alleged that top administration officials at Penn State University, Curley and Schultz, after receiving a report of the sexual assault of a young boy in a Lasch Hall shower by Sandusky from both a graduate assistant and the coach of the Penn State football team not only failed to report the incident, as required by law, but never made any attempt to identify that child.Sandusky was not seen committing a sexual assault on a young boy and the "graphic compelling testimony" if so full of holes it sinks under the weight of it's own contradictions. This press release is another example of egregious overstatement by the Attorney General concerning the testimony of one Mike McQueary. If anything the Attorney General should be investigated for inflating Mike's testimony to the point of ruining Joe Paterno's reputation.
The more we see revealed the more we know the truth and the worse the AG, the BOT and the media look.
This is the railroading of PSU by an unscrupulous Attorney General folks - there is no doubt about it.
This is about one incident and has nothing to do with my belief in the actual identified victims. I am angered by their treatment and pain and this emphasis on a non-existent victim 2 and making it the focus of the press release is incredibly counter productive for the case against Sandusky. We can only hope the AG has not blown the case against Jerry Sandusky by the focus on McQueary because his testimony is easily attacked by reasonable doubt. The zeal in which the AG went after PSU is damaging to the other victims who have real strong cases - not beliefs based on glimpses and slaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment