For BSD Attorneys and Laymen - You be the Defense

How would you defend Tim Curley and Gary Schultz against the charges of perjury brought by the Attorney General? OR if you prefer how you would convict them as a prosecutor. 

Can the Perjury Trial also be used defend Joe Paterno and Penn State by not only clearing Tim and Gary of Perjury but in the process making their decision in 2001 seem reasonable and nothing like a cover up? Once you have built your case that Tim and Gary did not perjure themselves can you address the larger issue of what they were told by Joe Paterno?
Joe did nothing to discourage them from reporting to authorities
They asked Joe his opinion based on 30 years or working with JS. 
Joe had no reason to think JS could harm the kids he seemed so intent on helping and the 1998 information he heard made him less likely to think JS was a pedophile because he was cleared.

Roberto and Farrell be using the 1 or 2 seconds and the visualizations along with the "I would have said" testimony from the Perjury Hearing to discredit Mike's claim of what he saw and would have reported as an  extremely sexual act
Mike's description of feet on floor, not bent over, very little motion, boy's height relative to JS will be demonstrated with pictures or mannequins 
First a large male of JS height with a boy standing beside him top of head level with pectorals
Then the boy facing a wall upright with hands outstretched
Then with the man behind him

THESE ARE THE WORDS UNDER OATH IN TESTIMONY BY MIKE McQUEARY 

You can use these as a start or go to the transcript for others to find statements that cast doubt on what Mike saw and what he said
                                         VISUALIZATIONS and I WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE page 56 line 14

                                                 A SECOND OR TWO GLANCE    page 12 line 12              

                                            MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS  page 14 line 17

                          SLAPPING SOUNDS BEFORE GLANCES NO SOUND DURING  page 15/16

WHAT MIKE WOULD HAVE SAID? 

DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK - WAS NOT SURE 104

 DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER CONTACTED BY AG p 57

 VERY CLEAR IT LOOKED LIKE INTERCOURSE 

 NOT SMART TO MAKE A RECORD? p 89

Joe's Statement under oath at Grand Jury 

Curley Testimony Under Oath Grand Jury

 

Schultz's Statements Under Oath Grand Jury

Farrell and Roberto can be quite effective using Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony. 
His claim of 3 slapping sounds being either rhythmic or sexual can be tested?
Play sounds of wet hands on a shower room wall
Wet feet on a shower room floor
Wet hand slapping a bare stomach or thighs in a shower
and ask if any or all of those sounds were like what he heard?
What makes them "rhythmic" or "sexual"? 

What did he mean about those "visualizations"?
Why did he only glance for 1 or 2 seconds?
Why did he think the boy did not cry out or show pain or distress?
Did that make him question his suspicions?
Why didn't he question the decision when informed?
How did he live with it for a decade without protest? 
How can a 6 foot 4 man of JS size rape a boy only as tall as his pectorals if the boy is not bent over and has his feet on the floor?

A PERJURY TRIAL IS ABOUT EXACT WORDS. 

Why did he say "I would have said" or "I thought" instead of I told them and I saw? 
What were Mike's exact words?
Why didn't he protest the decision if he thought he saw a rape?
Could Jerry have been grabbing the boy from behind to stop him from running around or falling?
Could you flash pictures like these of  a man and boy on a screen for 1.5 seconds each
A) A man picking up a boy after a fall
B) A man grabbing a boy to prevent a fall
C) A man trying to mimic sodomy from that position 
and ask Mike to say which one was the sodomy? 
Can that be done in a deposition? 


What questions would you use and how would you go about clearing Tim and Gary and as a result clearing PSU and Joe Paterno in the most effective way? OR If you prefer to be the prosecutor please show us how you would prove perjury at the Grand Jury using the link just below. 
The Pennsylvania Perjury Statute - the state must prove Tim and Gary said something they did not believe was true in their Grand Jury Testimony that is available HERE Curley p 179 thru 204 Schultz 204 - 235 

 § 4902.  Perjury.
        (a)  Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a
     felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he
     makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
     swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when
     the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
        (b)  Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of
     the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if
     it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.
     It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
     falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is
     material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
        (c)  Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to
     prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was
     administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the
     declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document
     purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when
     the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to
     have been duly sworn or affirmed.
        (d)  Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense
     under this section if he retracted the falsification in the
     course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became
     manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and
     before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
        (e)  Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made
     inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation,
     both having been made within the period of the statute of
     limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the
     inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the
     alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by
     the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the
     prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one
     or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be
     true.
        (f)  Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section,
     except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a
     statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony
     of a single witness.

Please Add Your Comments to the discussion here : The Second Mile Sandusky Forum