Where's Perjury? The Perjury Challenge for $100.00

The rather famous Where's Waldo would put it like this:

We however are given the full transcripts of the Grand Jury Testimonies of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who are charged with Perjury for some statements made in this document found on pages 178 through 235 of the Perjury Hearing Transcript. This is all the prosecution can use to prove Perjury - a willful statement under oath known by the witness to be untrue. 

The prosecution is using these statements trying to recall what was said in a 10 minute meeting between Mike McQueary and AD Curley with VP Schultz in February of 2001 - a decade prior to the Grand Jury testimony. Prosecutors evidently intend to use the testimony of Joe Paterno on pages 174 thru 178 of the same document to corroborate Mike McQueary. This is an 85 year old football coach trying to recall what Mike told him in a separate 10 minute meeting 10 days prior to the McQueary meeting with Tim and Gary. 

My opinion is that this prosecution is frivolous and is extremely prejudicial for these reasons:

• This prosecution serves no purpose other than to cast aspersions on PSU and Paterno 
• It relies on memories of a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past.
• There is no recording of the meeting so exact words will never be known
• It relies on judgment of how Tim & Gary interpreted what they heard from Mike. 
• Statements made are recollections and impressions not ability to recall specifics.
• Charges rely on definitions not commonly held by defendants & McQueary
• Statements cannot be removed from context of the defendants opinion of Sandusky at the time. In light of recent events things that seem obvious now were not clear or even considered then. 
• The prosecution has not made available the testimony of Dr. Raykovitz or Dr. Dranov. Testimony that likely tends to support the defendants.  
• Statements made by Tim & Gary concerning the meeting with Mike include the disclaimer "I cannot recall specifics" or words to that effect. 

This is the Perjury Challenge: I expect it to take a normal person no more than 2 hours to review the statements in the Transcript - pages 174 thru 235. The print is large, double spaced, and only a very few of the pages contain any information about the 10 minute meeting and what was said during that meeting. Most of those statements are already identified and laid out in this Article along with the full text of the Perjury Law in PA. The statements of Joe Tim and Gary are preceded by John McQueary's testimony pages 133 thru 157 and you are welcome to use that as "corroboration" if you choose. Pages 5 thru 114 contain the testimony of Mike McQueary and you can use that testimony to try to prove perjury.

I believe Mike's statement "I would have said extremely sexual and I think it was intercourse" In speaking with Tim and Gary is the pertinent statement relied on by the prosecution and found here in Mike's only answer concerning what he said to Tim and Gary

It was Tim's statement that he never heard intercourse or extremely sexual from Mike

Gary Schultz gave his impression of what Mike was trying to say 

So we get the disclaimers "I don't recall what McQueary specifically reported" "My impression was" and "I cannot recall the specific conversation and how Mike said it" - with these statements trying to recall a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past. Is that perjury? 

Mike could have said "I think it was sexual but all I got were one or two second glances and I expected to see two adults having sex since the 2 or 3 slapping sounds informed my visualizations. 

If Mike's 5 or 6 minute description of what happened that night (see the first image above) included these last statements about visualizations and one or two seconds how might that inform Tim & Gary about the nature of Mike's story? I know it would make me think he could likely be mistaken if he "would have said extremely sexual or thought intercourse" 

So here's the challenge to anyone who thinks they can build a solid case for Perjury that will convince a majority of BSD readers in a poll that this trial will end in conviction based on what we know as of July 12 2012 after another Perjury Trial Hearing on July 11 when we may know something more. 

Some believe the leaked email snippets will support the perjury charges since they indicate that Tim Curley took what Mike alleged seriously enough to look into the situation by contacting JS, Joe, and Dr. Raykovitz and that a bill from attorneys for 3 hours of legal research shows they knew they were dealing with a reported sex act that left them vulnerable. You are welcome to use this information in building a case for conviction of Tim and Gary. 

You will provide your case for conviction to me via email and I will add my argument for the defense. The result will be posted on The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal site and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Forum and on BSD with a poll that will say vote YES if you believe this is a valid case for convicting Tim and Gary or Perjury or NO if you do not. Submissions receiving a majority of YES votes will be polled to determine the most popular of them and that submission will be awarded the $100 via check or PayPal 

With all the lawyers on here complaining of being out of work this should be a way to gain some cash for 2 hours of effort. 

PLEASE POST COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE ON THE FORUM HERE