Monday, October 9

Potential Bombshell: Feb 9th meeting was fabricated?

Based on an email in the McQueary v. Penn State civil proceedings it certainly appears that Mike McQueary did not meet with his father on February 9th, 2001 -- and the Attorney General's office knew it.


14 comments:

  1. Ray - Did MM actually write the email with groups of three dots in several spots or do they represent redaction by you or someone else?

    What was MM responding to with his denial that his father did not go with him to Paterno's house? Was it a newspaper article?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I am being misrepresented in the media...as are some others...it just is not right"

    Oh BTW, who exactly are the others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark,
      In the full email, he wrote "National talk shows are saying the most brutal things -- not about the perp, but about everyone else."

      He was right about that. Joe, Tim, and Graham all were getting hammered by the media.

      Delete
  3. Tim,
    The dots appear to have originated with Mike as he wrote a rambling paragraph about things that were being incorrectly reported.

    If the two phrases "with my father" and "he was out of town the night before" are connected, then this means the meeting took place at another time...most likely Saturday morning.

    The PA OAG has notoriously changed dates and times in this case. It would not surprise me if this was a slight change done to "protect" Mike.

    Someone came up with the theory that Mike was intoxicated on Friday night and in no condition to talk to the police. He instead slept it off, then got up early to talk to his father and Dranov. That would explain why no one called the authorities on Friday night after being told of "sex sounds" and Sandusky and a kid together in the showers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did no one ever ask Mike, under oath, if he had been drinking or on drugs that night?

      If he was under the influence that night and talked to his father and Dranov Saturday morning instead, that would really be a bombshell. It would also be perjury by MM, his father and Dranov plus suborning perjury by prosecutors.

      In Spanier's appeal, Judge Boccabella ruled that the statue of limitations for child endangerment charges relating to the 2001 shower incident is 2039. If higher courts uphold Boccabella's ruling, then there is still plenty of time to charge MM and the rest with child endangerment. The Centre County DA would seem to have jurisdiction on such charges because the DA with the conflict is no longer in office.

      Delete
  4. So, the AG advised MM to not respond to "incorrect stuff"?! I know that this is missing some context, but why exactly was MM being told that he can't respond? Something legal, strategic, both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The AG (Eshbach) was concerned that if Mike made a statement correcting the grand jury presentment and stating he was NOT SURE what he witnessed, it would damage her case.

      She testified to that at Mike's civil trial in October 2016.

      Delete
  5. If Justice was truly blind, she should not have been thinking about damage to her case, she should have been thinking does she really HAVE a case? This goes to the very crux of her case - MM did NOT witness a rape, merely something that upset him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why isn't CNN's Sara Ganim or PennLive reporting this?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tim,
    Caroline Roberto asked Mike if he had been drinking when she cross-examined him on December 16, 2011. Mike denied he'd been drinking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If John McQueary was out of town the night before Mike met with Paterno on Saturday morning Feb. 10, does that raise the possibility that the shower incident was earlier than Feb. 9?

    Wasn't the date of the shower incident just set working backward from documented dates, such as Schultz contacting Courtney on Sunday the 11th.

    What if the shower incident was Feb. 8, Mike met with Dranov and his father that evening and he waited an extra day to contact Paterno?

    What if the shower incident was a week earlier, and Mike only decided to contact Paterno after it was announced on Feb. 8 that the PSU wide receiver's coach was leaving for the Steelers?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim,
    You are correct that the Commonwealth "triangulated" the date from the email evidence and notes, combined with testimony, and maybe most importantly, the job opening on the staff that had just become available.

    When Mike called Joe about the incident, Joe's initial response was that if Mike was calling about a job opening, he shouldn't bother coming over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ray - Did the open wide receiver's coaching job on Feb. 8, 2001, ever coming out in court? Was McQueary ever asked in court why the first thing Paterno told him was that there was no job for him?

      I just remember the rather ridiculous testimony of Sassano going through old TV Guides looking for airings of the Rudy movie to try and set the date.

      Delete
    2. At the December 16, 2001 preliminary hearing he was not asked about why JVP said that -- but that should have provided enough info to determine the year was 2001, not 2002. There were no openings in 2002.

      As for Sassano, he allegedly got the TV guides and looked at 2001 first -- then looked at 2002. And that he bought them back to February made no sense at all. And that he didn't buy 2004, when there were openings on the staff also didn't make sense.

      Delete