tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post7200465211360584057..comments2024-01-30T04:57:48.673-05:00Comments on Second Mile Sandusky Scandal: Mike McQueary - Reality Challenged? Barry Bozemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-76487707901401151902012-09-27T12:32:21.688-04:002012-09-27T12:32:21.688-04:00Adding further credibility to your argument, MM ev...Adding further credibility to your argument, MM even came up with his own definition of "fondling" under cross examination to explain how he could use the term when he already admitted under oath that he couldn't see physical contact because of the position of the two bodies:<br /><br />Q Did you ever use the word fondling?<br /><br />A I'm sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I'm sure I did use the word fondling, yes, ma'am.<br /><br />Q Okay. Did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky's hands on the boy?<br /><br />A No. I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking--<br /><br /><br />Q Okay .<br /><br />A --his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on a boy's genitals, no, ma'am.<br /><br />Q So you can't--how would you describe fondling? I'm sort of confused here.<br /><br />A Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don't know if that's the exact definition, but that's what my definition is.<br />SharKe_Byteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06080354120309284104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-9282847818583173252012-09-27T10:17:53.381-04:002012-09-27T10:17:53.381-04:00In Law School (Ivy League) you are taught in the f...In Law School (Ivy League) you are taught in the first day of Con Law (4th amendment, search and seizure) that cops are notorious for lying.HKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02589150826396026926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-42879294028483932492012-09-27T10:13:41.069-04:002012-09-27T10:13:41.069-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.HKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02589150826396026926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-68775576687270440082012-09-27T09:18:29.090-04:002012-09-27T09:18:29.090-04:00McQuery should be hypnotized to see if he can reco...McQuery should be hypnotized to see if he can recover the truth. He has probably been having nightmares or reincarnations of this scene for not helping this poor boy for 9-10 years. He should not get a dime out of PSU for a whistleblower settlement, especially if he perjured himself.bsharpe3https://www.blogger.com/profile/08009543089034767761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-91467488849894671482012-09-27T06:42:00.762-04:002012-09-27T06:42:00.762-04:00BTW for what it's worth, Linda Kelly is a Pitt...BTW for what it's worth, Linda Kelly is a Pitt grad.<br /><br />Who hates PennState more than Syracuse and Pitt.<br /><br />Agenda's run deep.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790288022231489462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-6241149321815881712012-09-27T03:18:09.778-04:002012-09-27T03:18:09.778-04:00According to Dr. Dranov Mike would not say he SAW ...According to Dr. Dranov Mike would not say he SAW anything - he kept going back to what he had heard - which we know was 3 slapping sounds he thought were sexual. <br /><br />According to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience. <br />"A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it . <br />Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with "Joe I heard some sounds I though were of a sexual nature but when I glanced in the shower room I thought Jerry may have been fondling that boy". <br /><br />But what has happened through a series of unfortunate events is <br />1) Mike did not do what he should have done and A) confirmed his suspicion OR B) convinced his father and doctor to involve the police <br />2) Mike failed to offer enough convincing statement to Tim or Gary to give them the idea this was anything different than another bear hug in a shower.<br />3) Mike then enhanced his story - perhaps at the urging of prosecutors - to the Grand Jury<br />4) The Attorney General in her zeal decided to publish his story as a definitive "He saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe Tim and Gary<br />5) John P Surma and the BoT decided to take that statement in the Presentment as unassailable fact and decided to fire Joe and Dr. Spanier giving the Media good reason to believe the Presentment must be fact if even PSU's BoT is using it to fire Joe Paterno - He must be guilty. <br /><br />This is as simply put as I can condense the McQueary disaster.Barry Bozemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-7765889325035785292012-09-27T00:27:26.283-04:002012-09-27T00:27:26.283-04:00Great comment Jim - and I totally agree.
It is a...Great comment Jim - and I totally agree. <br /><br />It is amazing how the media swallowed the MM Koolaide with the help of the AG and Governor - but also the Surma's and the BoT.<br /><br />And it appears that Mike will collect a nice paycheck for his lackluster performance. Barry Bozemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-29141162962757661902012-09-26T23:26:38.346-04:002012-09-26T23:26:38.346-04:00why does the public seem to believe McQuery withou...why does the public seem to believe McQuery without reservation? Because the prosecution overstepped their grounds. The AG has two contradictory stories. McQuery says he told PSU people about Sandusky. PSU administrators say he never did. How do you make your guy more credible? You charge the two who contradict him with perjury.<br /><br />McQuery is/was the most important witness for the AG against Sandusky b/c he had no baggage & he was friends with Sandusky so he had no bias against him. Defense attys could be able to destroy the kids who were abused by Sandusky b/c they presumably had bad records, bad upbringing, bad families, looking for a payday, empotionally unstable, etc. But they couldnt do that with McQuery. He was friendly with Sandusky, played on his football team. he had no apparent ax to grind. He was the witness they needed. <br /><br />He is the only guy without a bias that could testify for the AG. The other witness would have bee the janitor but the AG should have never gotten in his testimony. The janitors testimony should not have been in the presentment, nor should it have been intriduced at trial. It is inadmissible hearsay. And that may be cause for a new trial. But they had McQuery & he needed to beconsidered truthful.<br /><br />Lets not forget that the AG Office, their investigators, and cops, can lie as much as they want to get you to tell the story they want to hear. This is the law. Cops can lie during interrogations but you cant even be mistaken. With that in mind, it would not surprise me that the AG might have threatened or hinted at prosecution for McQuery, his father & Dranov if Mike did not remember things more vividly. They surely told him that Sandusky had done this to numerous kids & Sandusky needs to go to jail. But if they made a threat to prosecute for failure to report a rape, or accomplice to hiding a rapist, he could have been easily turned into giving the AG what they wanted to hear.<br /><br />Maybe we know this already, but I wonder whether McQuery was represented by counsel when he was first interrogated by police & whether he was represented by counsel when he went to the Grand Jury. Without competent defense counsel, these threats would seem even more persuasive to get him to embellish what he saw. <br /><br />I say this b/c if the prosecutoin threatened McQuery with prosecution & his father & his family friend Dranov with prosecution unless he tells "the truth" as they see it, such a threat could have caused mcquery to embellish not only to save his skin from prosecution but to save others as well. Im sure he feels terrible for not doing anything to stop the rape, as evdienced by his email saying he stopped it - "you know me i would not let that continue" - when his GJ testimony says he didnt stop anything. By embellishing the story either at the behest of the AG or to make him feel better about himself despite his own failures, he told a story that would help jail Sandusky and to him that was maybe payback for his failure to do the right thing back in 2001.<br /><br />The only problem developed when Curley & Schultze say McQuery never told them about a rape. How do you handle two people with impecable records to save your star witness. You charge them with perjury. By saying that the two people who contradict your star witness are liars, you essentially start the game with an edge. Alot of times, the defendants wont testify to say your witness is a liar & that prevents any contradiction of McQuery. Plan worked since Curley & Schultze didnt testify for the defense as to the credibility of McQuery. <br /><br />Sorry for the long comment, but needed to get this off my chest and still cant understand the lack of support for Paterno (a guy who we know alot about with a history of doing the right thing) as opposed to the public support for McQuery (a guy we know nothing about that has been shown to have contradicted himself on prior occassions & had no balls to do the right thing when he had the chance).<br />Jim Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05238689751242598360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-28663537865598726372012-09-26T22:20:09.179-04:002012-09-26T22:20:09.179-04:00Sorry folks you are either pregnant or your not! ...Sorry folks you are either pregnant or your not! I still question why McQueary got out of bed and decides to put his new shoes away at 9:30 at night, could there be more to all of this than we know? Was McQueary watching this area for some reason? From readings and JG report original questioning sounds like he was pretty good friends with Sandusky and family.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-57054523659833090722012-09-26T21:42:02.259-04:002012-09-26T21:42:02.259-04:00I can't challenge that idea at all JeffreyI can't challenge that idea at all Jeffrey <br />Barry Bozemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-14700728389805365342012-09-26T21:38:52.559-04:002012-09-26T21:38:52.559-04:00Barry,
I have defended Mike McQueary over and ove...Barry,<br /><br />I have defended Mike McQueary over and over, I still think he is a good guy being manipulated to say things, but after reading these trial transcripts for a 3rd time, I will offer this challenge to ANYONE:<br /><br />I do not believe ANYONE can say with certainty, exactly what Mike McQueary saw that evening. Least of all MM.Jeffrey W Simonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00177874741526642177noreply@blogger.com