Yesterday, I followed the perjury pretrial waiting for to hear something damming to Tim and Gary. I don’t about you, but I didn't really. And yet the prosecution was found to have probable cause for perjury and failure to report and the case was approved for trial.

I must be losing my mind, because I failed to hear any evidence presented by the prosecution that really proved to be an Ah-Ha moment, did you? To me it was all “he said/she said” crap about several people’s recollections of events that occurred 9 years ago. Throughout the course of these events, those of a more astute legal background than I have taught me that there are very specific conditions that must be met before charges such as these are brought to trial. The biggest seems to be corroboration of which I have seen exactly none of for the perjury charge. The prosecution seemed to hardly lift a finger in this pre-trial and arguably failed to present any hard evidence to make a case. Their case was MM’s word. Their whole closing argument seemed to be, “…It’s clear that the intent here by Curley and Schultz was to mislead the jury into thinking that their actions were appropriate – Thank you.” So their perjury case rests on an oath (MM) against an oath (everyone else) with no victim and no reported crime. There are 2 men going to trial for perjury and it’s still not clear what exactly they lied about in their sworn testimony (what passage, what statement) nothing was pinpointed by the prosecution and surely it wasn’t the whole testimony of both was it? And yet according to the court there’s enough evidence to proceed to trial. Hmmmm… smells a little like Chilean Sea Bass to me. And then there’s the failure to report charge, ok… I can…maybe see this one…maybe…and more so if there was actually, you know, a victim. No what I’m really baffled about after yesterday (any many have mentioned it before), is how can you charge the AD and VP with failure to report and not Mike’s dad (Dr. McQuery) and Dr. Dranov? That is if Mike was so sure what he saw and so very clear about the manner in which he described it to others leaving no doubt he witnessed a crime (looking them into their eyes and all). According to childwelfare.org,

Pennsylvania

Professionals Required to Report. Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311

Persons required to report include, but are not limited to:

Licensed physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, interns, nurses, or hospital personnel

If you charge the AD and the VP with failure to report, and perjury (lying under oath) based on the testimony of Mike McQuery how do you not charge the doctors with the same crimes especially Dr. Dranov who’s testimony seems way more contradictory to McQuery’s than the AD and VP’s testimony. If Curly and Schultz are suspected of lying under oath than so is Dranov. WTF?

The arguments from the defense seem much more in tune with what was presented thus far in the court of law which revolved around…

1.) Ambiguity

2.) No Corroboration

3.) Lack of evidence

Shultz’s attorney offered a closing argument that included, “…perjury occurs when one knowingly makes a false statement about a fact.” Seems logical doesn’t it? No fact no case, which is where I see the current state of affairs. Curley’s attorney offered a closing argument that included, “…the courts have specifically prohibited perjury from being just an oath against an oath." Which again, is where I see this current situation and yet there’s enough to take this to trial. This leads me to believe the court (judge) had their mind made up before they even entered the court room. It seems that no public figure wants to be the first to take an objective view publicly (for the record) by limiting a decision only to what factual content is presented. After examining what came out of yesterdays pretrial, I believe that this perjury and failure to report case is at absolute best, premature and is feeling more and more like an Amanda Knox case.