Not so GRAND Jury Presentment on trial today?

Here it is Friday the 16th and at 9am Tim Curley and Gary Schultz enter the court in Harrisburg to hear from Mike McQueary so we might get to know if his GRAND Jury Testimony, or what he said to Dr. Jonathan Dranov M.D., or what he told Joe Paterno, or what he told Curley and Schultz, or what he wrote in his written statement, or what he said in an email to team members was accurate. Or did the GRAND jury sign off on a lie presented by the prosecution?

If charges against Curley and Schultz are dismissed today the entire Media frenzy that led to the firings at PSU and the public vilification of all things PSU become arguably one of the worst cases of premature judgment in recent history. Perhaps this will set the stage for a flood of defamation lawsuits against media giants like ESPN. In 12 hours we should know where things are if MM takes the stand.

New information about the design of the locker room if true shows that the summarization of the McQueary testimony is a flat out LIE - see the information at the bottom of this post. If the reported design is accurate it proves that the summary of Mike McQueary's testimony is totally inaccurate.

Below the jump is one characterization of the mystical workings that produced the all important GRAND jury Presentment. An unimpeachable masterpiece that has convicted Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Mike McQueary, and Prestident Spanier along with PSU - the football program and everyone associated with any of those as pedophile enabling cultist.

In the Court of Public Opinion a horrid little hellhole in the middle of the state where they visit Hershey, Intercourse, Bird in Hand or Slippery Rock. - all obvious sexually charged names with dire consequences if you have a Falwellian mindset - is home to Pedophile University. This is due to this brave concoction where 23 wise and able sages have fully deliberated the truth presented by their protector the Attorney General as fair and measured evidence and carefully parsed it into the polished gem of truth known as the GRAND jury PRESENTMENT.

If you can believe anything you must believe the GRAND jury PRESENTMENT is the whole unvarnished TRUTH or so many would have us believe. It's certainly been TRUTH to the majority of the MEDIA - those fair and hard working intrepid seekers of truth and speakers to power and right who have littered the airwaves, the internet, and many a mail box with their outrage over the enablers who ignored a monster to protect a football program.

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing a PA GRAND jury hard at work in it's deliberations. But as usual I have a theory to run by you if you are as at a loss as I am for what to do after Jerry Sandusky bailed out of today's promising hearing. So those of you who would care to join me - take the plunge and JUMP

AND CHECK OUT THE UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

As usual I write to urge readers to withhold judgment until all the facts are known while offering alternate possible explanations for what may be happening in the Sandusky case. Everything below is aimed at the Victim 2 section of the GRAND Jury Presentment and the reported summary of Mike McQueary's testimony or what the presentment describes as an accurate paraphrase of what he offered in response to questions from the prosecutors vetted by the jurors by vote.

My reading of the GRAND jury and prosecutors is that the McQueary testimony is not critical to their case. Remember that each count against Sandusky STANDS or FALLS on it's on merit. Victim 2 is likely unknown or claims no molestation. The prosecutors must convict on the counts involving other victims despite Homer's claim to the contrary.

Perhaps Sandusky bailed on today's hearing in order to keep the Victim 2 charges in the indictment. He and his attorney may see some advantage in producing a victim 2 to testify he was not molested and in impeaching the testimony of MM using Dr. Dranov?

My experience from the other posts and comments on the Sandusky matter lead me to think that those who tend to think the worst about Paterno and PSU administrators also tend to put the most stock in the Grand Jury Presentment as strong and accurate evidence of fact. I trust they will have an equally compelling argument against what I suggest in this post.

How the Grand Jury system works in Pennsylvania.

Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret.
When called to the grand jury room, the witness sees the grand jurors, a court reporter and one or more prosecutors. A witness before a Pennsylvania grand jury may take a lawyer into the grand jury room. The lawyer may not pose objections to questions asked or address the jury but can consult and give advice to his client.

The prosecutor poses questions and individual jurors may pose questions to the witness.
Then the grand jury considers a presentment prosecutors prepare which summarizes the evidence and sets out specific recommended charges. If twelve or more of the 23 permanent grand jurors agree, the presentment is submitted to the supervising judge for his approval and is typically sealed until the prosecutor is ready to bring the recommended charges.

The above is from the PA Attorney General website. - paraphrased for a more concise explanation

So 23 usually jobless and elderly adults are chosen from the jury pool and hear only the evidence provided by the prosecutors in exactly the manner they wish it to be heard. The prosecutors then draft the presentment and require 12 votes to get it approved.

In the case of the 23 page Grand Jury Presentment for the Sandusky case we have to imagine how diligently the jurors parse the wording for each victim. I find it difficult to imagine the jurors giving much thought to the contents. They are a tool of the prosecution and all they hear are prosecutors in a setting where there is no opposing lawyer to object or raise questions.

News media reports yesterday consistently stated that the GRAND Jury heard the testimony of Dr Dranov, Curley and Schultz along with Paterno and found McQueary's testimony "MORE CREDIBLE" than 4 older professionals. But is that really the case? Did these jurors simply accept the prosecutors presentment without deliberating the relative weight of the opposing testimony? Dr. Dranov is not even mentioned in the presentment.

Day after day jurors have been subjected to these horror stories from victim after victim. Their contempt for Jerry Sandusky and anyone who might have enabled his continued abuse should be overflowing when it comes time to approve the prosecutors wording in the presentment. Why would they care how it affects Penn State or Joe Paterno or even their star witness Mike McQueary? I imagine the prosecutor could write any characterization she wished that made clear their contempt for Sandusky and none would stop to give it's impact on others the briefest thought.

The target of the grand jury goes to trial where the system gives the accused his day in court with counsel.. A mistake here does not put someone in prison – it only puts them on trial. If the legal professionals want to try the case who are they to object? If prosecutors need their help to convict this monster why would they tie prosecutors hands raising doubt in the credibility of the McQueary testimony characterization?

Are jurors even given a charge prior to their deliberations ? Do they even deliberate? Or does the prosecutor walk in and read the 23 page document and ask for a vote? If 12 vote yes the session ends and we get what we got.

Ms Linda Kelley the States Attorney an ally of the Governor is not interested in anything more than making the strongest case possible against Jerry Sandusky and the "PSU people enabled and ignored and likely covered up" meme is in the best interest of that case. A graduate of Pitt and Duquesne Law, she has no ties to PSU. Her boss Governor Corbett received his Bachelor's degree from Lebanon Valley College then earned his J.D. from St. Mary's University Law School. As a cost cutting Republican it is said he was at odds with PSU President Spanier over funding and perhaps held some contempt for the stronger intellectual clout afforded a PSU grad over one from Lebanon Valley? Saving Penn State and Paterno from embarrassment and keeping Spanier out of trouble would not be high on his list of priorities - along with the priorities of his appointees to the Board of Trustees.

The GRAND jury would likely be putty in the hands of their prosecutorial handlers - the Attorney General & her assistants - and powerless to stop them from issuing a presentment that allowed the Board of Trustees the cover to toss the best of men under the bus and rid the Governor of a thorn in his side.

The presentment gave rise to a media frenzy and a tidal wave of negative feeling from a misinformed public moved to heap scorn on all things PSU. The presentment has now been irrevocably seared into the psyche of the American public by a media that rushed to judgment without the slightest consideration of how GRAND juries work in practice. If I can contemplate these possibilities why couldn't they?

I beg your pardon for yet another post on this subject although I feel strongly that this is a perspective we would benefit from discussing in order to add another element to our defense of Penn State against the misconceptions fostered by the media in the court of public opinion.

I see nothing GRAND in this GRAND jury situation that was likely steered in a very unfavorable direction for PSU by leaders who seem to have little reason to support Penn State. Does anyone have a better theory?

At least that’s one theory and I apologize to those of you who probably think I'm taking way too much liberty with your tolerance of an outsider. But it seems I have become addicted to this series of most interesting discussions with those I now see as cyber-friends. I find your company intellectually stimulating but will bow to your wishes if you prefer I retire to my appropriate place. I see this post as a totally different slant on the case from a perspective I never really considered until late yesterday.

Key Questions to consider in the poll below along with these: How important is the testimony of Mike McQueary to the case against Sandusky? Does convicition rest on him alone? Does his testimony have any impact aside from the counts against Sandusky regarding Victim 2? If NO and Victim 2 is either not identified or has indicated that nothing sexual happened will those counts be dropped from the case?

A guy from Tennessee who has adopted Penn State

UPDATE

A diagram of the locker room and shower room separated by a toweling area or towel room between the steam room and a heating jaccuzzi pool.

via 4.bp.blogspot.com

and a picture is also available

via media.scout.com

In this image we are standing at the wall and the entrance to the toweling area is to our left as we face the couches. You can see into the toweling area but you cannot see into the shower room. In order to see into the showers you must be well inside the towel room.

Hbeach08's description of the locker & shower area.

rectangular in size….entry is open and is about one third the size of one of the longer walls of the rectangle

not visible from main locker room area

locker room goes around a corner to a tiled "towel room" or towel area which leads to larger shower room

by hbeach08 on Dec 14, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks.

Even without a diagram, I think I’m still getting a pretty clear picture of an area that isn’t visible from the main locker room area. …in other words, a person wouldn’t see much of the interior of the shower room unless they walked almost all the way in.

by leeharvey418 on Dec 14, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

yes, or past it

you can go beyond the shower entry from the towel room to a tiled steam room opposite the shower and beyond to the training/rehab/pool area

by hbeach08 on Dec 14, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

Wow just WOW - you realize this makes the GJ Report a LIE?

Exact text of the Grand Jury Presentment

As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the showers. He 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. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught.

AS THE GRADUATE ASSISTANT PUT THE SNEAKERS IN HIS LOCKER HE LOOKED INTO THE SHOWERS. HE SAW A NAKED BOY…
so by the description it is impossible to look into the showers as you put sneakers in a locker.

Now it appears for certain that the GRAND Jury Presentment is a complete fabrication instead of a Summary of Allegations. Prosecutors twisted the truth to satisfy their need for salacious description while laying the groundwork for making Paterno and PSU into pedophile enablers and Mike McQueary into a pansy who would not stop a 60 year old rapist in action.

Does this rise to the level of perjury for the authors of the presentment?

Is it prosecutorial misconduct?

Is it grounds for dismissal of those Victim 2 charges?

Does it exonerate Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz?

It is obvious that Mike McQueary would have been lying if he told them he SAW anal rape or any sex act because he could not see into the showers from the lockers.

This adds significant credence to the theory that the presentment is far from a Finding of FACT

Penn State supporters should be totally outraged.