"I Know What Should Have Been Done and What I Would Have Done"

but only inserted into the 23 page Grand Jury Presentment does his testimony seem credible IMHO
Take his testimony by itself and it has already been set up to fail.
The fact that no victim 2 is known to prosecutors – as far as we know – makes his testimony useless against Jerry I think.

see my post below Joefromboalsberg below

The defense attorney for Schultz set him up perfectly for trial.
From his questions it is clearly established that he saw no crime. He simply suspected crime.
And his suspicion and “certainty” is based on 6 seconds of observation and slapping sounds.
But his physical description of events basically proves his supicion to be wrong.

He’s credible because of his certainty and his willingness to stick to his story but his statements actually prove his suspicion to be wrong – and the 6 second thing at a “glance” puts way more than reasonable doubt in play along with the No Pain or Distress from the boy and his leaving the boy there with Jerry naked in the shower.

For whatever reason people seem uncomfortable with the idea that memory is reconstructed rather than “remembered.” The reluctance to admit of this looks to me like some sort of uncertainty reducing mechanism. I could certainly see where angst might obtain — If one cannot count on a stabilized past, what does that say about the certainty of the present?

By Mikes own admission he observed the boy and JS together for 6 seconds
the first 3 second from a mirror in which he could only see the upper parts of their bodies and then mainly JS’s back. The second 3 seconds he saw them directly but could not say where Sandusky’s hands were placed or if there was "insertion" – as he put it.
I’m having trouble understanding why this vague suspicion with no eyewitness certainty is credible evidence of anything sexual. Mike equated slapping sounds with sex but he did not see sex and his own evident lack of concern by leaving the boy there alone naked with Jerry
Mike’s in the locker room for 45 seconds, he sees the two standing up for 6 seconds and rushes out. – now he seems to suspect something sexual but he did not go out of his way to observe it or to make certain it did not continue.
I don’t get this very credible witness stuff – sorry. But Mike’s testimony seems very insubstantial. The defense attorneys got him to admit
1) The boy’s head came up to Sandusky’s pectorals
2) Both were standing upright
3) He did not "look down there" so he could not ascertain the location of genitals – but Jerry’s had to be at the boy’s back with no erection.
4) He did not see hands on genitals – but a 6’ man can’t reach a 4’ boy’s from in back standing upright.
This will be the defense’s line of hard questioning in court and it will destroy any possibility that anal intercourse of any intercourse was happening
And that doesn’t include the demeanor of the boy. NO PAIN and NO Distress

Where’s the damning evidence in this account? His suspicion and certainty?
I think Mike is a terrible witness because the facts he has expressed under oath do not allow for his conclusion or suspicion to be possible. I would not advise going to the police with this story against a guy with Jerry’s reputation in 2002.

If this Victim 2 testimony was on it’s own without the remainder of the 23 page Grand Jury Presentment and the perjury charges would you think it was proof of anything at all?

from the tweets

Capitol_Ideas:
Q: and you didn’t call the police? I did not call the police.
roxburynews:
Did Sandusky have an erection? Pause. "I didn’t look down there." Pain on the boy’s face? McQuery says he didn’t see any.
MinkNate:
Boy’s head was up to pectoral muscle, McQ says
Capitol_Ideas:
McQ: For accurate height, I’d need a tape measure"
roxburynews:
McQuery first glances were in a mirror over the sink, from waist up. Saw Sandusky’s "whole back side."
annaorso:
"I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy. He was not bent over" – McQueary
Capitol_Ideas:
Was the boy bent over or standing up? Standing up.

This is what I tell the jury – what do YOU tell the jury JFB???

In 1998 the police amassed a 90 page file and report on an incident where a mother complained after Jerry showered with her son and hugged him.

The police could not find indictable evidence a crime had been committed.
If anything that extensive investigation without charges actually helps Jerry in 2002.

It does not matter that we think showering with boys if beyond creepy – it is not criminal

It was sexual…. It seemed like it could be sexual
I saw something…. I sort of glanced for a moment, but didn’t really make out anything one way or the other.
Anal sex… anything else

What do you do?

starting with posting the proposition that Joe and Mike were being unfairly treated in a post over on a Tennessee sports forum – and getting completely ostracized for not accepting the “fact” that they were horrible pedophile enablers.

to the continued misrepresentation of facts by the media in their desire to exonerate themselves from their culpability in this situation

the more upset I become at the shallowness of their observations and investigation of what may have happened 9 years ago.

I am passionate about the presumption of innocence – particularly for those folks who have not even been charged and Curley and Schultz who seem to have been charged on the vaguest of recollections from 9 years past in order to bolster the prosecutors publicity of their theory of the case.

If the press will not do it then at least I can – as one nonPSU person looking at the evidence and testimony from the perspective I have chosen. That pretty much pits my unknown and unspported by any ‘news’ or ‘sports’ media conglomerate out here as one outsider of a very few against many powerful media forces. I guess I think that requires passion and persistence

Maybe I’m wrong – and perhaps you can tell me why it seems to threaten you or upset you?

I have gotten some encouragement and support for my efforts here and as long as I am welcome – and I do go out of my way to provide a “please go away” option in my polls – I will be happy to remain and say what I think in the manner I do. You seem to be the first to actually question my motives.
I hate to tell you that it simply became interesting to me that the media had chosen to do what they have done – and I have a long standing grudge against ESPN for their treatment of Tennessee.
But I will not stay where I am not welcome – unlike Homer
so if the board has tired of my writing I do have other things to do.

I certainly don’t want to be a polarizing element – just supportive of what I see as a fine institution run by good people caught up in a terrible situation brought on by one man’s sickness.

there are still aspects about MM’s report that are potentially disturbing to the prosecution’s case. His testimony about not noticing an erection, the lack of expression on the young man’s face (one could reasonably expect pain if a grown man has anally penetrated an adolescent), the very brief period of his direct observation, etc., etc.

I am not trying to excuse JS or impugn MM’s testimony, but Amendola might be able to significantly weaken MM’s story, esp. if he has indeed found alleged Victim 2 and said person maintains there was no sex.

I offer this only in the context of Curley’s/Schultz’s perjury trial. A discredited McQueary could lead to a findng of innocent for Mssrs. Curley and Schultz.

He also stated “they were not bent over”
“I did not look down there”
“the boy was not ‘in pain’”
“I did not see insertion”

the height difference is only part of a whole series of things that were said that will make it very difficult to sustain ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ with Mike’s hearing testimony.

by “all the time”

I of course mean, twice a year

and involves a possible fine I think

Curley and Schultz will say ‘Mike did not see a crime by his own admission. He thought a crime was in progress but his two 3 second glances did not offer him that view. What should we report? Suspicion of a possible crime?" What’s the fine for that?

and I’m sorry but I see no rational way to answer YES (unless you assume the jury is 12 blind mice)

Since Mike has stated under oath that he saw no insertion or hands on genitals but was certain his suspicion of “extremely sexual” behavior was what he observed in those 2 3 second glances I wonder what the charge against Sandusky is? Suspicion of sexual misconduct? Sexual misconduct without the touching of genitals or using one’s own genitals in the commission of a sex crime? Hugging a boy from behind in a shower while naked?

But on to question two for you.
If there is no case involving the nonexistent Victim 2 because no Victim 2 exists why did the prosecution choose to add it to the remainder of the Grand Jury Presentment with any criminal counts?
Surely they must know they cannot possibly prove sexual intercourse with a minor without the minor in question on the basis of two 3 second glimpses of Jerry Sandusky’s back.
Jerry simply say at that precise time I had grabbed the boy from behind because he was running around the shower room turning on more showers and he started to slip and fall. I grabbed him to keep him from sliding into the wall and getting hurt.

So if there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any sexual misconduct with regard to the non-existent victim 2 Did the prosecution include those shaky unprovable charges to involve Paterno and Penn State in the case?
Why did they put these words in the Grand Jury Presentment that damned PSU, Paterno, and Mike to the current abuse being heaped upon them by the media and the public
The Graduate Assistant witnessed *the boy being “subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky”
We know for certain that Mike never said “anal” and said he did not see “insertion” or penetration so stating as a “FINDING OF FACT” that Mike witnessed anal intercourse is gross misconduct by the prosecution is it not?

Dragging PSU and Paterno through the mud over two 3 second glimpses that did not reveal ‘anal intercourse’ – the only type one can have with a boy is misconduct. In reality we are down to one 3 second glimpse because the mirror view did not reveal below the waste of JS or the boy.

1. Why did it take days ‘til MM is asked to meet w/ AD & VP? Unless he was incommunicado by time of the infamous Sunday meeting, he should have been reachable. You’d think they’d want a prompt first-hand account.

I think of two possible reasons 1) Whatever Joe told Tim on the Sunday after his meeting with Mike did not prompt Tim to believe the situation was all that serious. and 2) Spring break started that weekend so people were probably going away from State College.
If Joe was more – Mike seemed upset because he saw Jerry Sandusky showering with a kid and there was some horseplay or wrestling and Mike thought maybe something sexual was involved. – Joe knowing Jerry’s association with kids and his practice of wrestling and physical contact with people may have thought MIke was upset over nothing much.

2. What did AD & VP actually do between that Sunday and meeting with MM?
Went on vacation?

3. What did they actually do following meeting with MM?
Curley talked to Sandusky and got the phone number and name of the boy. And told Sandusky he was no longer to bring kids to the PSU facilities. Tim probably talked to Gary and they likely discussed the 98 situation that led to no charge over what they thought was a similar shower scene and they probably discussed Jerry’s physical nature in the context of his 6 foster kids and his charity work. I doubt they were very concerned about Mikes 3 second view of Jerry’s backside. Jerry likely told them the kid was running around in the showers turning them all on and slapping the floor and clapping and Jerry greabbed him to keep him from falling right before Mike walked in saying they could call the kid if they wanted to verify his story – which it seems he would have.

4. While perjury is more serious legally, I think ‘failure to report’ is a much more serious fault in getting PSU into current situation. Had there been a police investigation, whatever the result, it would be on the record even if no prosecution resulted.
Maybe and inhindsight you are right but I doubt Tim or Gary thought a police investigation of Mike’s 3 second view of Jerry’s back would add up to anything. And since there is no identified victim 2 for the prosecution his suspicion will not add up to anything.

5. Had the 2000 (i.e. janitors) report also been made,
This would have been all over because he clearly saw oral sex being performed. Not some brief glance and unproven suspicion.like with Mike.

The mods haven’t posted it lately, but BSD gets a shit-ton of traffic. I’d guess that this is the first place that tens of thousands of readers come to for info on this all this awful shite.

And, by the by, (to borrow a phrase from the estimable Reading Rambler) with this scandal and its treatment alone, there’s a sea change occurring in the balance of power in this Information Age. Whereas, not long ago many info consumers (aka readers) trusted in the ‘mainstream media’, almost daily they are realizing that is has become what aurabass describes above:

What use to be fairly autonomous ‘get the facts straight at all costs’ dedicated journalism has become overt infotainment commercialization of information offered to incite interest instead of inform opinion.

I think Mike was made to feel guilty once he was contacted by investigators and prosecutors and think that may well have helped him reconstruct a memory that made it seem to him he was more emphatic about his “extremely sexual” suspicion. I think he was conflicted during and after his 3 second glances. He could not be certain but it looked very wrong to him.

As a result and hearing the horrific accounts from the other victims from the prosecutors he determined to do whatever he could to help convict the monster. He was egged on by the prosecution as “their most credible witness who was not a victim” so he felt compelled to deliver.

As a result he was doing this for the victims without any real sense of how that might affect Joe or his job or the university – naive to the media frenzy it would inspire. He tried to do what prosecutors convinced him was the right thing and ended up hoisted on his on petard. No good deed goes unpunished.

In reality he was not certain but he had strong suspicions about Sandusky. But without victim 2 his insight into Sandusky’s real character didn’t really end up working in this situation.
He’s is a good guy put in an untenable situation. He suspected but did not see. His suspicions were right about the man but wrong about this one instance.

What amazes me is the number of people who continue to repeat facts that simply aren’t true.

This is fair enough… but more troubling and more difficult to argue against are those who begin to believe their own assumptions as facts.

In order to combat this tendency for myself, I’ve tried to stuck to one principle… the most simple explanation that incorporates known facts and makes the least assumptions is the most likely to be correct.

And the more I think about it and the harder I force myself to stick to Occam’s Razor, the more I start to agree with a lot of things Schultz’s attorney says (minus the ridiculous statement about being a Brooklyn guy and getting baseball bat). Agreeing with a lawyer that isn’t on BSD

The actions of everyone become really reasonable if you just assume that McQueary didn’t make a self-assured and strong allegation against Sandusky. I think it is safe to say that the administration was probably somewhat concerned with PSU’s reputation (they are paid to be), but it also appears that nobody made a conscious effort to cover it up (e.g., not telling MM not to talk about it, Joe informing two adminstrators, Curley/Schultz telling Spanier about the incident and their course of action). And MM did not make much of an effort to push the matter, reinforcing to Curley/Schultz that their action was considered adequate (this also supports the idea that he was not very self-assured in reporting the incident to start with).

I also want to add that this doesn’t mean I think MM is purposely lying either. I think he’s had a lot of time and a lot of motivation to rethink his story and his role in that story… and I also know that memory (and recall) are a lot more active processes than anyone wants to believe.