Penn State picked Sandusky investigator from Corbett administration’s list

Curley and Schultz would almost certainly have testified at the Sandusky trial if they hadn’t been charged. Sandusky’s lawyers tried to get special permission to use their grand jury testimony at trial.

If CSS goes to trial, I think the defense will depose the man who self-identified as victim 2 and call him to testify. It will not look good for prosecutors if victim 2 testifies that he talked to them before the Sandusky trial, and they lied in court saying victim 2 remained unidentified.

No, you don’t have to believe the kids were lying, just that Mike McQueary is not telling the truth.

McQueary’s testimony contradicts his actions in 2001 to 2010. He testified he thought a boy was raped a few feet from him but offered no help to the boy, said nothing to the boy and Sandusky and just left the boy alone with Sandusky. He never called the police, and after 2001, attended Second Mile events where Sandusky was present.

Curley and Schultz would not have testified because they were under indictment.

I think the defense will depose victim 2 because they want to see what he has to say. You don’t know if he claimed abuse the night McQueary saw him because he never testified about it. He did deny abuse to Sandusky’s investigator. Victim 2 apparently did not corroborate McQueary’s story or the prosecution would have called him. That’s reasonable doubt.

McQueary is not necessarily lying. He just may be misremembering or was led by police. He couldn’t remember the year and month of the shower incident despite it occurring two days after his dream job opened up when Asst. Coach Kenny Jackson abruptly resigned. He couldn’t remember who else he told but remembers he told several others, maybe even his girlfriend. It took him over a year after he first talked to police to remember the locker door slam.

McQueary is a biased witness against CSS because he claims in his lawsuit they defamed or lied to him and stands to make money if they are convicted.

No one ever corroborated McQueary’s story of seeing Sandusky bear hugging a boy from behind, slamming a locker door and then seeing them standing apart in the shower. Dr. Dranov testified McQueary told him a very different story.

McQueary went to his father first and it was his father and Dr. Dranov who urged him to contact Paterno. None of them contacted the police the night of the incident, which makes no sense if Mike believed he witnessed a sexual assault.

It was not established that McQueary did not attend Second Mile events after 2001 other than McQueary denying it.

If subpoenaed for the Sandusky trial Curley and Schultz would have refused to answer citing their 5th amendment rights. Give an example of people under indictment testifying in another case against their self interest.

We don’t know what victim 2 said to Penn State lawyers about the 2001 shower incident because that settlement was confidential. He may have denied any abuse that night.

I didn’t say McQueary had to be lying. I said he may have misremembered and/or the police led him and planted false memories. The human memory is far from perfect and very easy to manipulate, especially for old memories. McQueary did not have perfect recall. He got known facts wrong, and his story keeps changing every time he tells it.

According to him, McQueary was in a panic so it is doubtful he was thinking about his job prospects when he reported to his father. He testified he may have phoned his girlfriend on the way over to his father’s house so she may be the first one he told details to.

There is a huge contradiction between Dranov and McQueary. Dranov testified Mike told him he saw a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and then he saw Sandusky exit the shower a bit later.

McQueary’s testimony was very different – he saw Sandusky bear hugging the boy from behind, slammed a locker door and then saw them standing apart in the shower.

A newspaper at the time reported McQueary was slated to appear at a Second Mile event after 2001. Once they get a trial date, I expect CSS investigators will look for some better proof that McQueary did attend Second Mile events after 2001. If he did, there are likely photos, records and witnesses.

Sandusky’s guilt is a very different question than whether CSS are guilty.

Other important McQueary issues are his dishonesty in gambling on football games he played in and his claim that he was a victim of child sexual abuse. The Sandusky jury was not told either of those.

Perhaps it was actually McQueary who was sexually abused in a shower. That would explain McQueary’s panic in 2001 and his automatically assuming sex was occurring when he heard two or three slapping sounds through the locker room door.

A defendant would be foolish to testify at another trial without immunity because anything they said could be used against them. In your example of gang members testifying against each other, they would get immunity for that testimony because they would be prosecution witnesses. That wasn’t the case for Curley and Schultz so not a relevant example.

McQueary’s testimony has not been consistent. He didn’t remember the locker door slam and third glance until the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing. That was after widespread media criticism that he did nothing to stop the attack. It took him over a year since first talking to police to remember the locker door slam and third glance.

The man who later settled with Penn State claimed in a lawsuit he was victim 2 so if he isn’t then that is fraud. The CSS defense would be negligent not to depose him at least.

Human memory is very poor, old or new. Eyewitness testimony is one of the major causes of wrongful convictions.

You don’t know why McQueary was in shock. You’re just speculating. McQueary’s gambling and his own child abuse are relevant areas that McQueary should be questioned about at trial. Concealing his gambling is relevant to his credibility on other matters. The jury should consider it.

The jurors could have believed Dr. Dranov’s version of events and still convicted. All the jurors needed was Sandusky and a boy alone in a shower to convict because they 8 other victims testifying about what Sandusky did to them when they were alone. The jury did not find Sandusky guilty on the most serious charge for 2001 so they had some reasonable doubt about McQueary’s testimony.

McQueary did tremendous damage to other boys and Penn State by not immediately calling the police in 2001. He did one of the following:

1. Told vague stories in 2001 and didn’t reveal the full truth until 2010 and later.

2. Told the truth in 2001 but then embellished the story in 2010 after being led by police.

In the Sandusky trial transcript, the defense asked the judge for permission to use Curley and Schultz’s grand jury testimony since they wouldn’t testify. The judge even pondered for the record if the prosecution had charged them to remove them as defense witnesses.

The reason to call Curley and Schultz is obvious. They contradicted Mike McQueary, as did Dranov. Three against one is more than reasonable doubt that McQueary was not credible.

In his lawsuit, a victim claimed to be victim 2. It was in the newspapers. Penn State settled with him so he never testified.

The gambling has nothing to do with why McQueary was in shock. Gambling goes to his credibility and ethics. McQueary had no problem deceiving Paterno and his team when he gambled on games he played in. He risked NCAA sanctions and a huge scandal for Paterno if caught.

You’re wrong because they did convict on hearsay evidence alone for the unidentified 2000 janitor victim.

Paterno was not told of a crime. Even if he was told of a crime, he followed the law in 2001 in reporting to his superiors. It was up to the eyewitness to either tell a clear story or report it himself. Mike McQueary did neither.

Dr. Dranov certainly contradicted Mike McQueary. Dranov testified that Mike said he saw a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and then Sandusky exit the shower a bit later.

McQueary testified he saw Sandusky bear hugging the boy from behind, slammed a locker door and then saw them standing apart in the shower.

There are numerous major differences between those two stories.

If the man who claimed in a court document he was victim 2 was lying, then Penn State might get their $3 million back for fraud. It also bolsters Sandusky’s defense that the victims were lying to get a big payout.

Paterno never testified he was told it was sexual molestation. He said Sandusky fooled us all after Sandusky was arrested.

No one corroborated McQueary’s testimony as detailed above. McQueary claims he told others about the shower incident but conveniently forgot their names, None of his unknown friends/family have come forward to corroborate Mike’s testimony.

The jury certainly did convict Sandusky for molesting the unidentified boy from 2000 based just on the hearsay testimony of one janitor. Check the trial transcript or news reports.

Paterno trusted McQueary to tell the full truth to Curley and Schultz, who would then deal with it appropriately. President Spanier, PSU lawyer Courtney and three Second Mile officials, including a PhD child psychologist also played a role.

In hindsight, they all failed, just like the police, DA, CYS and DPW failed in 1998 after Sandusky admitted to bear hugging boys in the showers. But sure, blame it all on the old, dead guy who can’t fight back. That’s the moral thing to do.

As I said before Dranov’s testimony alone would have been enough for conviction because it put Sandusky showering with and touching a boy.

Dranov’s testimony is much more important in the CSS case, which mainly concerns what McQueary told the 5 men in 2001. According to Dranov, there was nothing close to a sex act, just Sandusky pulling the boy back when he leaned around the shower wall.

Paterno did not corroborate anything about McQueary’s story of seeing Sandusky bear hugging a boy from behind in the showers, slamming a locker door and then seeing them standing apart.

Schultz’s defense believes Paterno actually said “Was it a sexual nature?” and the prosecutor who read Paterno’s testimony into the court record misread it. Months ago, Schultz’s defense made a motion to obtain the audio tape of Paterno’s testimony. If the prosecution has nothing to hide, then they should be glad to provide that.

You’re simply wrong that hearsay testimony was not enough to convict because the janitor’s hearsay testimony was enough to convict for the unidentified 2000 victim.

Dranov’s testimony will be far more important at the CSS trial where the key issue is what McQueary reported in 2001. Dranov’s version backs Curley and Schultz’s testimony and contradicts McQueary’s version.

The audio tape of Paterno’s grand jury testimony has not been made public so it remains an open question. Paterno’s testimony was read into the court record by a prosecutor at the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing. The prosecutor could have misread it.

What is very suspicious is the prosecutor’s followup question to Paterno’s statement “It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.”

The prosecutor asked “Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?” rather than saying sexual conduct.

Baldwin’s testimony is just hearsay so is weak. She also lacks credibility because the OAG threatened to charge her with obstruction so she is probably testifying to save herself from charges. Baldwin also gave contradictory statements, under oath, about the Trustees meeting. She gave a sworn statement to Freeh and grand jury testimony.

Baldwin has no firsthand knowledge of what McQueary told Curley and Schultz in 2001.

You’re wrong that McQueary didn’t tell Dr. Dranov enough. Hearsay testimony of the janitor was enough to convict in the 2000 incident with an unknown victim.

If McQueary had not survived until 2010, Dr. Dranov could have been a hearsay witness for an unknown victim, same as the janitor.

Dr. Dranov certainly does back the CSS version of horseplay. He testified about a boy peering around the shower wall and an adult arm pulling the boy back. That’s horseplay.

The transcript is of the prosecutor reading Paterno’s grand jury testimony into the court record. There are three chances for an error there.

1. Creating of the grand jury transcript
2, The prosecutor’s reading of the grand jury transcript 3. Creating the preliminary hearing transcript.

It’s a simple matter to release the audio recording to settle the matter.

Paterno never said he was told it was sexual. He may have simply assumed that in hindsight. He had no memory of what Sandusky and the boy were doing in the shower in 2001 because he was told specifics.

Badwin’s testimony is weak hearsay. It is all the weaker because she is probably only testifying to avoid obstruction charges herself.

Nowhere in her grand jury testimony does Baldwin say she was ordered by Spanier to obstruct so there goes your “co-conspirator” speculation.

More than likely she was just in over her head. She didn’t have the qualifications or experience for the job. She just got it because of her insider status as a former Trustee.

Turns out she sunk Frank Fina … you, your boss or your boy — which one?

Wait … Kane was indicted?!? LOL.

GET A CLUE, Shill-Boy. It’s a circular firing squad and your boy, Fina, walked into it (like an idiot).

ZZZZZ …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … … ZZZ … …ZZZZZ …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … … ZZZ … …ZZZZZ …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … … ZZZ … …ZZZZZ …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … … ZZZ … …ZZZZZ …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … … ZZZ … …

Here’s what Frank Fina was doing while Sandusky raped boys:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zadock1/3580634808

https://datingjesus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/paterno_statue_ap329349108338_620x350.jpg

Once again Johnny says:

https://img1.etsystatic.com/102/1/8838186/il_214x170.843138933_6asm.jpg

Based on their indictment of CSS

Johnny’s drunk again!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ