On 12 June 2012, defense attorney Karl Rominger conducted a devastating cross examination of Mike McQueary in the course of attempting to defend the indefensible Jerry Sandusky. The actual transcript of that cross examination was not released until 21 September 2012, which explains why virtually nobody, except Barry Bozeman on The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website, has written about the deliberate deception Rominger exposed.
Mr. McQueary was the graduate assistant at Penn State who, according to the 4 November 2011 grand jury presentment, “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” on 9 February 2001.
But, in fact, McQueary “saw” no such thing. How do we know? First, because McQueary’s actual testimony to the grand jury reads: “I’m pretty sure he was sodomizing him, I’m relatively sure,” Second, because McQueary later testified under oath that he never saw insertion, never saw an erection, never heard any protest, screams, shouts or cries by the boy and never witnessed any agitation or distress on the part of the victim.
McQueary envisioned sodomy and testified to being “relatively sure” of sodomy, because: (1) he heard three “skin-on-skin smacking sounds” upon entering the hallway leading to the locker room and (2) he subsequently saw Sandusky positioned behind the boy, with his arms wrapped around the boy.
I have two questions about McQueary and his testimony: 1. Was Sandusky acquitted of 3 of the 48 charges against him because of McQueary's inconsistencies over time in his testimony about the Feb. 9th 2001 shower incident? 2. If the identity of Sandusky's alleged victim in the Feb 9th, 2001 shower incident has been identified, can that person be compelled to testify at Sandusky's appeal trial or sentencing hearing?
ReplyDeleteSandusky was found not guilty on 1 of the 5 charges agasinst Victim #2 (the boy McQueary saw in the shower). He was found not guilty of "Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse". He was found guilty of the other 4 lesser charges related to this victim.
ReplyDeleteDuring the deliberations, the jury asked to rehear both McQueary and Dranov's testimony before reaching their verdicts so they were clearly debating what McQueary had really seen and what he told others. The result was that they felt there was reasonable doubt that McQueary had really seen a rape being committed.
The other two Not Guilty verdicts Sandusky received were related to two other victims (5 and 6) and were for "Indecent assault".
I haven't slogged through the details (nor am I a legal expert) but if McQ's grand jury testimony directly contradicts his trial testimony, it seems to me this proves perjury, does it not?
ReplyDeleteUnknown...I am no attorney but you are correct...
ReplyDeleteWell, now McQueary is suing the school for defamation of character. Is he hoping to get millions of dollars without ever addressing the discrepancies in his testimony? Is he hoping that a civil suit will be more inclined to public opinion than actual legal guidelines?
ReplyDeleteIs there any possibility that the Curley/ Schultz perjury trials will have a curveball that will get them convicted? Is there any way for Curley and Schultz to walk free without McQueary getting charged with perjury himself? I just can't believe how screwy the AG has been to rest their entire public case on McQueary's stumbling process of recollection and reconstruction of the past.