The McQueary Evolution

by Barry Bozeman

 In the wake of ESPN's Outside the Lines and ESPN the magazines article "THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S LAST STAND", I am revisiting my thoughts about Mike McQueary and his pivotal role in what became the Penn State Sex Scandal. 

The first comment I ever made on the Penn State/ Second Mile/ Sandusky revelations came the day of Linda Kelly’s Press Conference on Nov. 4 2011. As an active participant on the Tennessee Scout sports forums I injected a comment in a long thread of people literally calling for McQueary’s head on a pike. The anger and hatred of McQueary was visceral. “How could a big strong football coach in good shape fail to step in and kick the crap out of an old man who was raping a 10 year old boy”?

Well I could not wrap my head around it either so I felt there must be something else going on and I knew the true nature of a Grand Jury Presentment. Knowing that presentment was not an unassailable statement of fact I tried to caution my fellow Volunteer fans to reserve judgment until all the facts were in. That seemed to be a big mistake. People were angry. Angry at Penn State, at Joe Paterno, at Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and very angry with Mike McQueary.

If Linda Kelly’s goal was to destroy Penn State and Joe Paterno in the court of public opinion, she succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. If this was the reaction on sports forums for the Tennessee Volunteers it had to be the reaction across the country on similar forums. I’m not sure why I thought there was far more to this story than seemed evident in the PA Attorney Generals presentation but I became intent on finding out. That led to the creation of this weblog and a long history of exploring the case. 

I actually felt sorry for Mike McQueary. I thought he must have been an abused child – possibly abused by Jerry Sandusky. I tried to imagine how shocked I might have been if I had seen what the Presentment claims he saw. But over time I came to a much different conclusion concerning McQueary and his role in this entire affair. There is no question that Mike McQueary was used by the Office of the Attorney General to make The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal into the Penn State Scandal. The only question I want to consider now is whether he was a willing participant, a coerced participant, or and unwitting dupe.

Over time much thought and effort has been focused on attempting to understand what McQueary actually saw. Linda Kelly’s presentment stated this “most credible” witness “SAW a boy being subjected to anal rape” by Jerry Sandusky. McQueary has made it clear that this overstates his observation. This website was the first to obtain and publish pictures of the locker room where this took place. 

What we do know about that night is that McQueary phoned home and then left the Lasch building to meet with his father and family friend Dr. Dranov that night. The following morning he had a 10 minute conversation with Joe Paterno. And several days later he met with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz to tell them what he had observed.

Even if we can accept that McQueary was so freaked out by what he saw or thought he saw at the Lasch building that he could not react in a manner to protect the child that Kelly says he observed being raped, can we accept that condition made it impossible for him to convey the nature of the heinous crime to his own father and long time family friend Dr. Dranov?

McQeary says the child's height in comparison to Sandusky placed his head at the pectoral muscles of Sandusky's chest.

Here is the point where McQueary's description of the end of his observation becomes important. McQueary says he faced the boy and Sandusky standing a couple of feet apart both observing him. He does not say the child showed any discomfort or surprise much less any fear, pain, embarrassment, or horror over whatever had happened. How is it possible that a small child of that size would not be in pain or greatly distressed if those slapping sounds were a big man driving himself into the child? And perhaps more importantly, how could a grown man desert a small child who was fearful or in pain to the person who was responsible for that situation? 

Clemente gets it: No one remembers exactly what was said.

Career FBI profiler, Jim Clemente, got it right.  Specific words from a conversation from ten or twelve or fourteen years after the event should not be used as evidence for a criminal investigation.

By
Ray Blehar

During Jim Clemente's interview on "Media Mayhem with Allison Hope Weiner, he makes a very sound observation regarding the testimony of Joe Paterno:

"But they show that after ten years or twelve years or thirteen years, you can't remember specific words that you used in a conversation.  And it's irresponsible for somebody to quote somebody ten years or twelve years after the event and say those are the specific words they used in a specific conversation.  That is absolutely not done it's - it's not proper in a criminal investigation at all."

Just prior to Clement's statement, host Allison Hope Weiner correctly stated that "Paterno could have benefited from better counsel."

Paterno's statements

Everyone focuses on Paterno's statements to the grand jury that McQueary told him it was "fondling" or "something of a sexual nature" as if those were the exact words McQueary used.  That is purely folly, as Clemente points out.  It is Paterno trying to recall a conversation from ten years prior.

However, it is relevant to point out that Paterno said McQueary provided no details during an interview just prior to him testifying at the grand jury.   Here is a summary of Paterno's interview (Exhibit E-1) with the police and personnel from the Attorney General's office.

So, just moments before Paterno is called to testify he states that McQueary didn't give him specific details and moments later, he conjures up a few details that are construed to be the exact words McQueary used.  And those exact words were never verified completely by McQueary -- who has his own memory issues.

McQueary, under cross examination at the preliminary perjury hearing was asked:

Roberto: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
McQueary: In nature?
Roberto. Yes.
McQueary: I can't remember if I used the word in nature or not, ma'am.  I don't know that.

If McQueary can't remember what he said, and he is approximately 50 years younger than Joe Paterno, it strains credulity that Paterno could remember exactly what was said ten years ago.  Yet, the media and most of the public believes that McQueary said "of a sexual nature" to Joe Paterno.

Again, it is beyond reasonable for anyone to remember the exact words from a conversation occurring ten years earlier.

But to file perjury charges based on an "impression" is even worse.  And that's the case of Gary Schultz.

Schultz Grand Jury Testimony

One should view Schultz's testimony in the context of Schultz assuming he was not the subject of the investigation and trying to be helpful to the state (as was Paterno).  These men were not trying to hide anything.

Schultz's testimony is somewhat similar to Paterno's because he is simply adding information about what he thinks might have happened in the shower, not what McQueary told him about what happened.  Schultz even goes a far as to qualify the statement that McQueary did not tell him the information.  It was an "impression" of the incident that Schultz had -- not the actual report from McQueary.

Obviously, Schultz too, could have benefited from better counsel.

What does his impression of the incident have to do with what McQueary told him?  Moreover, how can an impression be the basis for a perjury charge?

Yet the media has run with this impression as the "report" that Schultz received from McQueary when the transcripts from the grand jury prove that it was certainly not the case.

Tim Curley's Grand Jury Testimony

Tim Curley often qualified what his testimony with the phrase, "I can't remember specifically" or "My recollection was." This certainly indicates that his testimony is not an exact memory of what was said.
Here was his statement about what McQueary told him.

"My recollection was that they were kind of wrestling, there was body contact, and they were horsing around."

As posted here, the Commonwealth made an attempt to rebut this statement through John McQueary's testimony that Mike was not familiar with the term "horsing around" and never would have used that term.  It's a ridiculous argument.

But what is more ridiculous is the AG charging these men for perjury over what is essentially having normal memories (or in the case of Schultz, a pretty bad memory).

The Media

And the media is equally guilty of holding these men to a ridiculously high standard for remembering a ten year old conversation, as well as not performing due diligence in reviewing the transcripts to understand exactly what was said.

Here's an excerpt from a Pulitzer Prize winning story by Sara Ganim.

According to the grand jury, then, here is how McQueary’s eyewitness account became watered down at each stage:
    
McQueary: anal rape.
Paterno: something of a sexual nature.
Schultz: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy’s genitals.
Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around.
Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable.
Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room.

Of course, we all now know McQueary never reported an "anal rape."

We also know that McQueary could not recall using the term "in nature" when he spoke with Paterno and that Paterno stated that Mike didn't provide any details.

We also know that Schultz qualified his testimony that McQueary did not tell him about grabbing the boy's genitals and that it was an "impression" that Schultz had.

Curley indeed used the term "horsing around," but the McQueary's say Mike didn't know what that meant.

Spanier essentially reported what Curley told him -- it was "horsing around."

Curley told Raykovitz it was also "horsing around" and not just a ban on Sandusky bringing children into the showers.

Sara Ganim's reports on this scandal have been laden with factual errors and have been extremely biased against PSU officials.  Her incorrect account of the testimony of these men remains of the PN web-site, uncorrected, yet for over a year she's known McQueary never reported an anal rape.

Her performance as a journalist was so poor that I have decided to write a report on just how many facts this Pulitzer Prize winner got wrong and how many times she did not pursue leads that she uncovered in her stories.

Conclusion

It is folly to use the grand jury testimony of these men for bringing perjury charges or to impugn their character.  Pennsylvania is only one of two states (Connecticut is the other) that still use presentments.

I think the answer why is obvious.

House of Cards Rests on McQueary's Faulty Memory

The perjury and conspiracy charges against PSU officials depend on what Mike McQueary SAID, and not what he saw.  And the preliminary hearing transcripts prove he doesn't remember WHAT he said or, perhaps more importantly, WHO he told.

By
Ray Blehar

In the perjury case of Gary Schulz and Tim Curley, it's not what Mike McQueary saw that is in question.  It is what Mike McQueary said he saw.  And based on the preliminary hearing transcripts, he's not so sure what he said and who he told.

At the preliminary perjury hearing for Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, prosecutor Bruce Beemer's first question about what McQueary told the two men was met with a very solid answer.  

Mike firmly answered (with his rehearsed response),  it was "I told them I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and wrong."

His testimony went south after that.

If you're going to press perjury charges and you don't have a corroborating witness, your witness better be rock solid certain of what he said.....and McQueary is anything but rock solid.

What He Said, Part 1

Almost everything McQueary said after that first answer was qualified in by using the words "I would" or "I would not" or similar phrasing that is not definitive.  Experts call it a verbal tic, signaling McQueary was less certain about his testimony. Here are some examples...

Q: Did you describe....the body positioning of the individuals in the shower?
A: I would have given them a rough idea, yes.

Q: When you say a rough idea?
A:  I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a young boy with his arms wrapped around him.

Q: Would you have described for them what you believed the act was that you saw occurring in that shower?
A:  Yes.  Again, I would not have used some of the words you previously mentioned but I would have described that it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on.

The examples above were under "friendly" examination by the state's prosecutor.  When McQueary responded under cross examination, it was more of the same, except that he began experiencing memory loss.

Q:  When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A:   I would not have used the words anal intercourse.  I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

Q:  Okay. And when you got to this portion of the description did Mr. Curley say anything to you?  Did he follow up asking questions?
A:   I can't recall.  I can't recall that, no ma'am.

Q:  Did he -- do you recall any instructions that he gave you?
A:   No -- only that, what I do recall and what he did do...

Q:  So during this very descriptive statement of yours to Mr. Curley about sex -- a possible sex act in the shower, Mr. Curley didn't -- you don't recall Mr. Curley asking you any questions or stopping and clarifying anything that you were telling him?
A:  I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't recall those questions or if he did ask questions.

Q: But you can recall specifically what you told him?
A: Yes, I can recall what I would have said about what I saw, yes, ma'am.

It is hard to believe that Caroline Roberto, who questioned McQueary, didn't attempt to make Mike be more specific and clarify his qualified statements.  But, maybe that was part of the strategy to get Mike's uncertain testimony on the record.

What He Said, Part 2

I don't know about you, but the words "extremely sexual" and "extreme sex act" were not words I used before this scandal broke.  Chances are, Mike never used them either until he and his father met with the lawyers in the attorney general's office.

John McQueary testified that Mike would have never used the words "horsing around."  He related "That's an archaic term that my dad would have said to me.  I don't think I would have used it, and I haven't used it, and I don't think Mike knows it."

Jeepers H. Christmas!  John McQueary doesn't think Mike knows the term horsing around?  Joe Paterno used that term quite frequently.  It's a very common term, but apparently not in the McQueary household.

"Horsing around" -- not used or known by Mike.

"Extremely sexual" -- used quite frequently by Mike.

Conversations around the McQueary household must have been pretty interesting.  For example:

John M:  Mike, your mom's birthday is coming up.  Don't get her anything for the house, go out and buy her something extremely sexual.

Mike M: I know exactly what you mean, Dad.  I saw some extremely sexual bathrobes at WalMart yesterday.

Mrs. M:  Mike, I just finished frying some eggs and they look extremely sexual -- would you like some?

For John McQueary to posit that Mike wouldn't have told Curley and Schultz it was "horsing around" because its a term Mike wouldn't know is preposterous.  And, the AG's choice of the words to describe the incident --  "extremely sexual" -- is equally preposterous.

It's one thing to have McQueary lie about what he told Curley and Schultz, but if you're going to have McQueary lie, at least have him use some words that are believable.

Who He Told, Part 1

McQueary experienced some memory loss when asked about what he said.  However, that paled in comparison to his memory loss when asked who he told.

From page 62 of the Preliminary Perjury transcript:

Q:  You have gone through with Mr. Beemer all of the people that you confronted and told about the incident.  Did you ever that night confront Mr. Sandusky with what you saw.
A:  No, Never.

McQueary's non-answer to the first part infers that he agreed he had discussed, at the hearing, all of the people he told about the incident.  However, it is well documented (in two cases) that he did tell others about Sandusky showering with a child.  And though this has not been reported in the press, those who played in Second Mile golf tournaments stated there were rumors of Sandusky "horsing around" with boys in the showers.

First, there was the person who reported his message board chat to the Centre County DA.  And there would be other people -- including Mike's brother - who were in the chat as well.

Next, McQueary told an equipment manager about the incident.  There is a footnote on page 88 of the Freeh Report stating: "According to Baldwin's notes, the manager advised her that McQueary had told him "that [McQueary] saw something that changed his life. [McQueary] had to tell Coach Paterno."

Finally, there were rumors at The Second Mile golf tournament during the last decade, that Sandusky was "horsing around" in showers with little boys.  Given the number of coaches and former players who play in the golf tournaments, it's possible that McQueary told others on the coaching staff and former players about what he witnessed.

Who He Told, Part 2

During the time of this scandal the only "witnesses" called to testify about McQueary's testimony were:  Joe Paterno, Jonathon Dranov, John McQueary, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz.   And none of the witnesses corroborate McQueary's account of reporting a sexual act -- except John McQueary -- who couldn't even remember testifying at the preliminary hearing.

However, it's clear that there were other people McQueary told, so why haven't they been identified and called as witnesses?

The most likely reason, as it was in the case of Victim 2, is that the other witnesses don't corroborate or, more likely, contradict McQueary's story.

It is likely that the chatters, the equipment manager, and the former players (that Mike told about the incident)  would testify to an account similar to Dr. Dranov's -- that McQueary only heard sounds, the incident happened around a corner, and that Mike saw Sandusky and a child exit the shower.

Where are these witnesses and why haven't we heard from them?

Are they not coming forward for fear of losing their jobs and/or business deals with PSU?

One Year Anniversary - We Know the TRUTH

Significant updates concerning Cynthia Baldwin have been added to this one year anniversary post but this story needs to remain intact in order to cover that disastrous week in Nov. 2011 and the events leading up to that week. We can now refocus our efforts and reacquaint ourselves in the wake of the election with the horrible injustice done to Joe Paterno and PSU administrators by the now replaced Attorney General and the current Governor along with the Board of Trustees and Louis Freeh. Their actions should not go unchallenged and opposed.  Barry Bozeman FREEHdom Fighter  

"Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Dr. Graham Spanier conspired to cover up allegations of child abuse by failing to report an incident witnessed by Mike McQueary in order to save the PSU football program from bad publicity." 

Remember Remember those Days Last November 

The BoT Treason and Plot 

by Barry Bozeman 

Kelly links AD Curley and VP Schultz
to Jerry Sandusky with perjury charge.  

The nature of business and political power in a our system can sometimes lead to terrible consequences. The collusion of common interests from Governor Tom Corbett and his appointed successor as Attorney General Linda Kelly, his long time acquaintance ripe for a 6.5 million dollar payday Louis Freeh, and a group of the most influential members of the PSU Board of Trustees is what we might expect it to be. Things have worked out as they have, not because these people conspired to undermine justice but by the very nature of their relationships it is simply in their best interest - selfish self interest - to behave as they have. "Enlightened" self interest is not always just and it does not lead to the truth or fairness. That's part of the conflict between corporate and business interests and an interest in truth and justice. 

Dr Dranov's Testimony - Transcript

THE TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHNATHAN DRANOV in Transcript is now Available 

We can now see word for word what Dr Dranov said that convinced the jury to find Sandusky not guilty on the prosecutions claim that Mike McQueary SAW a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe, Tim and Gary.

Mike McQueary heard sounds "of a sexual nature" SOUNDS!!!!

Mike McQueary was asked three times by his doctor - if he SAW anything Sexual "I kept saying what did you see and he kept coming back to the Sounds"

Mike McQueary's Story Is Not to be Believed

The Definitive Case 

That Mike McQueary's Story Is Not to be Believed

Submitted by John Ziegler on Thu, 09/06/2012 - 10:10

To my knowledge, never has so much damage been created, and punishment been levied, with so little evidence or even due process.Of the many absolutely incredible aspects of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, clearly the most underrated is that the direct connection to Penn State hangs on the remarkably tenuous story of one man (Mike McQueary) and about four words badgered out of an 84 year old coach in poor health who may have just been trying to make sure he didn’t harm the prosecution’s case.

2004/5 PSU MessageBoard Chat Gives Investigators New Evidence

by Barry Bozeman

A Penn State message board member has given the Screen names and names of some of Mike McQueary's friends and acquaintances to the Curley/Schultz Attorneys investigative team. These investigators have confirmed information that gives us even more doubt about Attorney General Kelly's use of Mike McQueary as the most "Credible Witness". Statements were made in chats about the 2001 locker room visit by McQueary that resulted in the current situation at PSU. 

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

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 

McQueary Testimonies and Contradictions

THE WHOLE STORY OF THE McQUEARY TESTIMONIES

 

ACCORDING TO KNOWN FACTS

To my BSD friends: In the ongoing discussion of the culpability of AD Curley and VP Schultz it seems as if two camps have developed. This constitutes my complete argument on behalf of the beleaguered AD and VP and thus PSU based on as much evidence as is available.
Perhaps the major difference is generational in our initial reaction to the idea of man and boy in shower. Perhaps we differ in our opinion of the competence of police over university administrators. But this is a serious defense of PSU in the person of it's administrators and the reasonableness of assuming that JS should have been stopped in 2001.
Remember as you read this that Tim and Gary only met with Mike for 10 or 12 minutes over a week following Feb 9, 2001 and their Grand Jury testimony reflects a less than perfect memory of that decade old meeting. Following that meeting Tim Curley got an explanation from Sandusky. Then they questioned and informed Dr. Raykovitz and finally they informed Dr. Spanier who make the final decision.

This fanpost will consider a key part of this situation - The testimonies of McQueary - who's words misused by AG Kelly are largely responsible for the tarnish on the image of PSU and Coach Paterno
These are the central questions - what did McQueary say to Schultz and Curley? What did they do about whatever he told them? And was the decision by Dr. Spanier based on their investigation reasonable at the time?

McQueary didn’t go into "gross detail," he said – not with his father, and not with Joe Paterno. McQueary told his father, "Dad, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on."

We know Mike told Paterno of seeing JS and a boy in the showers never saying rape or intercourse choosing instead to use "inappropriate" and perhaps "fondling". Paterno GJ Testimony read into Perjury Hearing transcript P 240
He told Dr. Dranov that he never said he saw a "sex act" but insisted he heard "sexual sounds" and "saw an arm reach out of the showers and draw a boy back in". "The boy was not startled or frightened" Dranov testimony at JS trial
We know he did not tell his father what he saw saying instead "Dad it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out".
We know Schultz and Curley say he did not give specifics leaving Schultz with the impression he had observed horseplay in the form of wrestling that might have involved inadvertent contact with genitals but nothing he considered criminal. It seems reasonable to me that MM did not tell Gary and Tim anything more that he told his father, Dr. Dranov, or Coach Paterno and that was not enough. See Perjury Hearing transcript p 204 thru 235

McQUEARY UNDER OATH - the Grand Jury, Perjury Hearing and the Trial

We know that the Grand Jury Presentment insisted MM's testimony was that he observed JS subjecting the boy to anal intercourse and informed PSU officials Paterno, Curley and Schultz. Presentment pages 6 and 7
His perjury hearing testimony: 2 or 3 slapping sounds "rhythmic and sexual" and two 2 second glances of JS backside with no hands or genitals in view as JS stood behind a boy who's head came up to his pectoral muscles with his feet on the floor. Perjury Hearing Transcript
And finally the testimony at trial was more confident as he added that he saw subtle movement from JS midsection as he claimed certainty that he was a witness to rape. What movement can be observed or certainty established in 1 or 2 seconds? McQueary Testimony summary
The jury in deliberation asked to hear the McQueary and Dranov testimony read again. It was the only testimony they reviewed. Their verdict was "not guilty" on the count of deviate sexual intercourse so they did not believe MM and his certainty about witness of a rape. Jury hears testimony again
The defense did not use the Perjury Hearing testimony or the various versions of McQueary's statements to impeach his trial testimony about an unidentified "victim" 2. Don't expect attorneys for Schultz and Curley to be so negligent and soft on Mike. The prosecution used mannequins to illustrate the positions of the boy and JS according to the testimony.

McQueary Testimony - Known Facts and My Opinion

STORY OF McQUEARY TESTIMONIES ACCORDING TO KNOWN FACTS

by Barry Bozeman

To my PSU friends: In the ongoing discussion of the culpability of AD Curley and VP Schultz it seems as if two camps have developed. This constitutes my complete argument on behalf of the beleaguered AD and VP and thus PSU based on as much evidence as is available.
Perhaps the major difference is generational in our initial reaction to the idea of man and boy in a shower. Perhaps we differ in our opinion of the competence of police over university administrators. But this is a serious defense of PSU in the person of its' administrators and the reasonableness of assuming that JS should have been stopped in 2001.

McQueary Story Changes Again

McQueary Testimony Changes - Moves 13 Months Forward in Time
by Barry Bozeman

This could really change everything for PSU in the Sandusky case. and this should truly concern all PSU alumni, students, and supporters. Court paperwork filed Monday, by prosecutors says the alleged sexual incident McQueary claims to have seen between Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. It happened Feb. 9, 2001, about 13 months earlier. This puts at least part of the case beyond the statute of limitations.