On perjury and the evolution of eyewitness accounts
by TonyLion on Jan 30, 2012 11:33 AM EST
Email
Print
I found this article very interesting:
http://www.wgal.com/news/30326274/detail.html
Just little game of telephone could explain some of the mess.
Here's a relavent excerpt.
"This is what happens in sexual abuse cases all the time," observed Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches legal ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Witnesses are embarrassed to describe in graphic terms what they saw and then it becomes a game of Telephone after that, as one witness changes the story a little before talking to the next witness."
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
41 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would be surprised if the Commonwealth will get perjury convictions against Curley and Schultz. McQueary clearly told many different versions of his story, and Paterno, a key prosecution witness, is, unfortunately, deceased.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 30, 2012 12:38 PM EST reply actions
Agree
McQueary admitted that he could not be sure about what he saw. His testimony was that he believed something sexual happened, not that he saw something sexual happening. I don’t even know why they were charged. I sat in the courtroom at the hearing and could not believe how vague McQueary’s testimony was. Whenever someone uses words like believe instead of saw and I would have said instead of I said, it is not reliable. Unless the child involved in the alleged incident comes forward to say otherwise, based on McQueary’s testimony, I do not believe a jury can conclude that a crime occurred. I hope that whatever happens, justice is done, but it should be based on real evidence, not on hearsay and innuendo.
by adams1826 on Jan 30, 2012 1:15 PM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I have said it before and....
I’ll say it again….MMc is the WITNESS and Joe was the recipient of news that in a court of law would be considered hearsay on his part…am I a JoeDefender? You bet your sweet reputation I am. Like the experts say, it is very unusual for an incidence like this to be talked about among men let alone be turned over to a police organization. I WILL TELL YOU that in my experiences with Childrens Services and the Welfare System, you had better be the “witness” in order for them to react to a tragedy like this. You cannot walk up to the counter and say, “I have heard from_____that ______is abusing children” and expect them to drops their pens and papers and rush out the door to investigate….and the police don’t do it either. Unless JS decides to blame Joe for this whole mess somehow and claims that Joe knew in 1994 what was going on—-Well it just won’t happen because that would be an admission of guilt on JS’s part. Let’s get the trials started when you can have a defense put-on and a prosecution that will ask pertinent questions that have to be factually based. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the GJ hearings, the prosecutors may ask any and all ????s and they don’t have to accept any of the answers they don’t want to…also, I believe that you don’t have a real defense as we know it in a GJ…we will eventually find out why Joe was NOT the center of the investigation and hopefully to our satisfaction, at least those of us who think Joe was done a great injustice at the hands of tBoT “Bosses” and other politicos who are merely in it for the $$$$ and votes, will be vindicated…..and I hope that the Freeh(sp) Investigation includes the Second Mile and people of their ilk that are connected to them. They must bear some of this responsibility too…and Graham, my Boy, you will get “yours” too I sincerely hope.
" The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 30, 2012 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I another thread it was discussed
that this was the 4th grand jury investigation into JS. The previous three uncovered victims that were willing to talk, but there were no Eyewitnesses that would solidify the case beyond a he said/he said.
With that knowledge, I am not surprised that the state was going for broke in this investigation – God forbid who got/gets in their way. They’ve been hot on prosecuting JS and with MM they now had the witness they were missing.
The link gives some explanation behind PSU administrator lack of action – other than a cover up conspiracy.
"If there’s a villain in this tragedy. It lies in that investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it," ~ Phil Knight
or maybe there isn't as much as people think to the JS cases.
we will find out in court. There was no true eye witness report to abuse in this case. The victims testimony is going to have to be strong enough to convict. Anything related to victim 2 is going to be dropped or it will raise considerable doubt on he said/he said testimony on the other cases. If JS is truely an abuser/monster, I am scared that the state completely fucked this up by worrying too much about the PSU connection and not following where the abuse started at 2nd mile. I personally think JS is guilty but I do have some doubts now, and I didn’t in November
"It doesn't matter what people think of me," Joe said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."
by BMAN13 on Jan 30, 2012 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and yes, I think the PSU connection is politically motivated as is the admission of 2nd mile.
"It doesn't matter what people think of me," Joe said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."
I think JS is guilty at least of being a creepy perv
but I have some reasonable doubt as to whether or not he actually raped any kids. I have slightly less doubt on whether he had inappropriate sexual conduct with them, but still some doubt.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 31, 2012 8:33 AM EST up reply actions
Derry
I always stop and read what you ahve to say on this and all matters. You clearly have been effected by this because of your close relationship with Joe and Sue. Just keep the faith, and hope that whatever the truth is, that is comes out and some closure can be had by all directly effected, meaning the kids here, and those effected but not as directly, like MM and Joe and his family.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Janis Joplin
by AriesGD on Jan 30, 2012 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Of course.....
It goes without saying that the real victims of this Evil are the kids….and I agree 100%…..However, no matter the outcome, I see a difficult road ahead mentally for the victims since this is such a heinous crime and the victims of such crimes are never “right”, to use the vernacular, no matter what the outcome of a trial. What you do hope and pray for is closure, but it’s going to be very, very difficult for THIS to blow over for All involved.
" The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 30, 2012 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Anybody correct any part of this as they see fit, if I've mistaken anything.
I am not saying Sandusky is guilty. I am not saying Sandusky is innocent. But there is something that puzzles me from a pure analytical sense.
This may get graphic, and if Chris and the mods have to remove it, I understand, but here we go….
McQueary said he heard rhythmic slapping sounds, which MMc believe to be sexual in nature. McQueary himself said he never saw penetration, insertion, etc. Now, if I read correctly in the preliminary hearing, McQueary said he made eye contact with Sandusky and the boy. McQueary said he saw no look of pain, distress, fear, etc on the young boys face. Now, to me, if Sandusky was sodomizing that boy forcefully enough for their to be slapping sounds, wouldn’t that cause some sort of pain, distress, etc,. to appear on the child’s face? Again, I’m not presuming guilt or innocence here. But, with most of us who have had some sort of sexual relations, if there’s enough force to create those slapping sounds, faces are going to be contorted in some way, no? To me, those sounds very well could come from some sort of horse play that, while GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE, does not constitute abuse or a crime.
Also, didn’t Sandusky himself give police the name and number of the boy in the shower, saying the boy will tell you there was no abuse? If that is in fact the case, and the boy testified there was no abuse that March night in 2002, what in the hell was all this commotion about the last 12 weeks?
Again, I’m sorry if this was overly graphic, but I do think, in light of what is at stake, these are observations that needed to be made.
Agree with your analysis. Victim 2 is also the only one where this specific act was alledged, which also raises some doubt for me.
Not sure about the police, but I believe that Sandusky’s lawyer has identified the alleged vicitm and claims that he will testify that there was no abuse. Not sure what that is worth, so I will take it with a grain of salt.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 30, 2012 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
Well, not to get into even grosser potential details
but if this isn’t the first time, the boy may have been past the ahem “pain” stage. Not really sure how that works with anal intercourse, esp with a child, but I’d imagine it isn’t that different from other types where after enough time the body adjusts…
And now off to scrub my skin raw while cowering in the bottom of my shower.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 31, 2012 8:38 AM EST up reply actions
One problem with the above article...
There was not really a whisper down the lane effect. McQueary told his version directly to Curley/Schultz. Spanier is “down the lane” but the others aren’t.
There are a ton of different ways that memories can be biased and I firmly believe McQueary’s versions of his story are a result of at least one of them… confirmation bias.
When McQueary first saw whatever JS was doing, he had every reason to doubt what he was seeing. JS was a family friend, a trusted mentor, and pillar of the community. I suspect McQueary’s original interpretation of the events were colored by that reputation (i.e., McQueary was searching for anything that might confirm or at least not fly in the face of Sandusky’s good guy image).
The actions of Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Joe can all be explained by McQueary recounting a story laced with doubt about what he actually witnessed. And the stories told by Curley and Schultz actually corroborate one another… with McQueary not really having anyone that can do that for him (Joe is dead and it is clear McQueary told him a sanitized version).
Now fast forward10 years. The cops contact you because they hear you might have evidence and you find out that there waas a laundry list of boys being victimized. This additional information, in the eyes of MM, shifts the image of Sandusky from a pillar of the community to a pedophile. Suddenly all of the really damning things MM witnessed are a lot easier to believe and re-incorporate into the narrative of what happened that night. The things that had been interpreted more positively could be re-interpreted. Now all that information is working to confirm McQueary’s view of Sandusky rather than working against it. Now McQueary is sure what he saw in the shower was a sexual assault.
The article linked above points out one thing that I think really supports this hypothesis and something that I picked up on at the opening hearing for Curley/Schultz. MM repeatedly use “would have” to describe what happened. I realize that is a tag to show that you don’t really remember completely, but “would have” and did are two separate things. I suspect a lot of people would have done things quite a bit differently if they knew that JS was a pedophile. On the other hand, the number of times someone is charged with and beats a charge will eventually work against that tendency (e.g., Schultz might have just figured “oh, another set false charges against Sandusky because he works with kids.”).
And I do have to agree with Curley or Schultz lawyer (can’t remember) when he talked about actions speaking louder than words. Had McQueary been so sure of what he saw, it certainly seems like his actions were out of line with that.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 30, 2012 4:01 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Video was Farrell, Schultz’s lawyer. It is very compelling, and I would recommend taking a look. Link to video is here
Thanks to Aurabass for the original link to the video.
by dontcallmescooter on Jan 30, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking of confirmation bias
The biggest problem with these defenses is that yet again they conflate what McQueary saw with what he said, and those are two separate issues.
What McQueary saw is important to the case against Sandusky.
What McQueary SAID is important to the cases against Curley and Schultz.
Joe Paterno corroborated that what McQueary SAID was serious enough to require a real investigation, and Curley and Schultz did not do that, and then apparently lied about what they were told to the GJ.
Again, it is not important for the perjury cases to assess whether McQueary’s recollection of what he SAW is correct; it’s important to assess whether McQueary’s recollection of what he SAID is correct – and that was corroborated by Paterno himself.
by M1EK on Jan 30, 2012 4:34 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
One of the JDs in the crowd can correct or verify,
but I believe Joe’s testimony is no longer admissible, as he is obviously not available for cross-examination. If that is the case, then the perjury cases are weakened, as there is no (longer) corroboration of what MM said at the time.
Also, Mike’s shifting stories do not help the prosecution of the perjury cases.
Feel free to disagree, M1EK, but be civil.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 30, 2012 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
There is a reason why I'm not a litigator, but I would assume that unless Curley or Schultz had Joe killed (you bastards!)
That there is a prior testimony hearsay exception that would allow the prosecution to use Joe’s testimony.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 30, 2012 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Even tho the defense can't
cross-examine? That’s interesting.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 30, 2012 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
What I've read
is that his testimony can now be used in some circumstances to corroborate (or refute) but not as primary testimony itself.
The perjury charge is about discrepancies in the conversation
between McQueary, Curley, and Schultz. Since Joe was not present, I don’t see how his testimony is either allowable or relevant. If it is allowed, the non-specific nature of the conversation between MM and Joe at Joe’s house seems to me more likely to support Curley and Schultz’s testimony than it does McQueary’s.
by CvilleLion on Jan 30, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is my feeling...
if anything, Joe’s story matches more closely with the misinterpretation of what McQueary was saying by Curley/Schultz. In fact, if you don’t presume a purposeful coverup by Curley/Schultz, then I’d say there’s more evidence that McQueary simply did not communicate what happened well enough and that, when he failed to object to the solution they enacted, Curley/Schultz assumed they had acted appropriately.
M1EK, you are right, what McQueary saw is important to the case against Sandusky. What he said was only witnessed by Curley/Schultz and McQueary (so how the hell can they prove perjury beyond a doubt?). What he saw is completely objective. What he remembers he saw, and how he interprets what he remembers, is not. And, like it or not, my point was that you cannot separate the two. It is quite possible, without assuming a conscious choice on McQueary’s part (this stuff mostly happens subconsciously/automatically), that his memory of what he said and what he saw in the room were both colored by what he thought of Sandusky. 10 years ago he thought Sandusky was a good person and his interpretation of events and recollection of what he saw would have reflected the details that fit that narrative unless they completely overwhelmed his ability to deny what he actually saw. Even now McQueary admits he did not see penetration or pain on the boys face… even knowing of the other charges against Sandusky. Certainly wrestling alone in a shower is inappropriate and worthy of alerting someone about, but if you think Sandusky is a good person and that protecting PSU against misunderstandings like this is important, then you probably happily interpret that event as (the now infamous) “horseplay” and accept what Curley/Schultz decided in terms of barring him from campus. After McQueary learned the police had a long list of victims, it probably overwhelmed his ability to interpret the event in any light other than the one that now seems so obvious. Story switcharoo and reinterpretation of the appropriateness of your role in that story… including what you said to Curley/Schultz.
McQueary is still an important witness against Sandusky, but any defense lawyer with half a brain should be able to get Curley/Schultz off on the perjury charges through a combination of no corroboration (again, the testimony of Curley/Schultz is actually in agreement, so they have more corroboration than McQueary) and putting a psychologist on the stand who can well articulate the argument I’m making to a jury. Then there’s also the “actions speak louder than words argument” (thanks for the link dontcallmescooter). The failure to report charges might be harder to dodge… legally I don’t know much about them… but as I understand they are a relative slap on the wrist anyway (although, even a slap on the wrist doesn’t help PSU’s reputation).
All I know is that if I’m sitting on a jury, I’m not going to convict someone of a very serious crime based on the testimony of someone who is trying not to lie by saying I “would have” done something… which allows that person to deny that testimony if someone comes up with evidence that proves it wrong. I honestly think this whole thing comes down to McQueary not being clear on what he saw, everyone at PSU not taking it as seriously as a result, all of them acting in a way that seems somewhat appropriate for “horseplay” especially given repeated failed investigations against JS with similar patterns of behavior, and that McQueary’s failure to insist on more severe action demonstrated to the administration that he thought the reaction was appropriate. I’m not saying there weren’t many failures here, but I still have not been able to square McQueary’s reaction, particularly in the weeks after the event, with someone who was very sure about what he saw. I understand not reacting immediately in the moment in that locker room (I’m not going to be an internet tough guy), but after the shock wore off and after recounting his story to multiple people to ask advice who should not have had the same problem with being shocked, he still was not acting like a witness who was sure of what he saw. It simply doesn’t add up…
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 31, 2012 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I also believe that Paterno's GJ testimony was also influenced by confirmation bias.
Based upon the actions of Paterno, McQueary’s father and Dranov, I think McQueary’s report at the time was of witnessing something creepy and inappropriate and even shocking, but not specifically sexual.
Then, when Paterno testifies some eight years later in the context of a grand jury seeking indictment of a sexual predator, confirmation bias leads him to add the “something of a sexual nature” part.
Possible.
But the same exact confirmation bias working in two people in the same exact way is somewhat unlikely.
I don't see it as a huge leap
We have a similar starting point and change of input.
By my line of conjecture:
- Both started from the same point (man and child horseplay in a shower)
- Both were years later made aware of similar additional evidence or rumors (man in shower is sexual predator)
- Both then reinterpreted the original memories in similar ways.
No.
if anything, Joe’s story matches more closely with the misinterpretation of what McQueary was saying by Curley/Schultz.
“fondling, something of a sexual nature”.
This far surpasses the level that requires a real investigation and reporting. It is a lot closer to what McQueary said than what Curley and Schultz said.
You continue to talk about investigation and reporting
while the conversation is about perjury charges. Joe wasn’t there. Period.
It is a lot closer to what McQueary said than what Curley and Schultz said.
I disagree with you. Deal with it.
Disagree
Again, neither McQueary, Joe, Curley, or Schultz could remember exactly what was said. McQueary testified to what he WOULD HAVE SAID, NOT what he actually said. That alone is enough to bring into question McQueary’s testimony. Rule one if you are advising a client, only testify about events you remember. If you do not remember, say you do not remember. McQueary’s testimony is nothing more than speculation and conjecture. SInce no one can remember what was said, nobody can conclude that anyone is lying. McQueary’s testimony about what he saw is very important and it goes hand-in-hand with what he said he saw – these are not two separate issues. McQueary admits that all he saw was Sandusky standing behind the alleged victim. Although he said he believes that something of a sexual nature was occurring, he never testified that he saw anything of a sexual nature actually occurring. If McQueary did not see anything, he couldn’t go and describe what he saw to anyone.
by adams1826 on Jan 30, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Mike vs Tim and Shultz
I thought that the Grand Jury was presented with a situation where either Mike was lying to them, or Tim and Shultz were lying to them.
In other words, both sides definitely testified to stories that conflicted.
In this case, ( lawyers, jump in here) is the situation such that somebody lied to the Grand Jury, so they had to choose one to charge with perjury.
Therefore, if the perjury charges don’t stick, does that mean that Mike would be found to have lied to the Grand Jury?
Son of an Infidel.....Eater of Vegetables!
by joefromboalsburg on Jan 30, 2012 10:04 PM EST reply actions
The AG needed to consider McQueary credible
because without an “eyewitness,” this would probably have been the 4th GJ investigation without an indictment.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
It is only perjury
if they can prove that you knew that you were lying.
For that kind of proof you need corroborating testimony at the very least.
They don’t have that. This is why the prestatement described McQuery as “extremely credible.” Perjury is still a criminal charge, so the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. But with that said, it is still up to a panel of jurors to decide. The perjury charge is really an indictment as to whether or not there was a “cover up” or something akin. From what I have read and deduced the two defendants had no motive for such, though if you doubt their character it could be arguable. Bit if that were the case then Spanier would be the one responsible, since he was the boss.
If we're playing "Who's the Boss" shouldn't this
“…then Spanier would be the one responsible, since he was the boss.”
be
…then the BoT would be the one responsible, since they are the boss?
Humanum est pati.
by Smee on Jan 30, 2012 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As disjointed as the language may have been...
I can’t agree with the sentiment more.
The more times I read Standing Order IX, the more I think the president’s job description should read ‘do whatever the hell the BOT damn well pleases’.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 30, 2012 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's goofier than that.
1. The BOT has all authority over university operations;
2. The BOT delegates all of it’s authority to the University President;
3. The BOT specifically absolves itself for responsibility for any decisions made by the President;
4. Only the President, or an individual specifically designated by the BOT may have contact with any member of the BOT.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Corraboration
So they feel there was deliberately conflicting testimony that occurred nearly 8 years after the actual conversations occurred? While this was a very serious event, I would not want to be held to such a standard on conversations that transpired so long ago. Now, if there were notes, memos, recordings that contradicted the testimony you could start to build a case, but this does seem tenuous. It’s almost like they want to set the stage for a cage match between Curley and Schultz. It really helps convince me that the prosecutors were:
1. Political grandstanding and/or
2. So pissed atCurley/Schultz for dropping the ball that they wanted to throw the book at them.
Perjury seems like a much more solid charge if you have wiretaps or such that would truly show that the defendant should have had clear knowledge. It will be interesting to see what, if any evidence the state can produce.
Of course, I’m just an engineer, so my above legal conjecture is strictly amateur – I’ll let the real barristers chime in. One thing I do know though – they didn’t file charges of any kind against McQueary, Paterno or Spanier.
There is a third scenerio. The prosecution, for some reason, wanted to suck PSU into the center of the case while deflecting any blame from 2nd Mile. By charging two high ranking officials at PSU, PSU becomes responsible for all acts after 2002 regarding someone in their employ, even it its emeritus status. It also crates a media storm around PSU while completely disregarding 2nd Mile. If a coverup or conspiracy exists in this entire sordid affair it is with the governor and AG ignoring the main player in JS’s supposed crimes. Even the fact that Spanier didn’t get charged while Curley and Schultz did is curious because by not charging Spanier, the prosecution is able to ignore the BOT since he is the direct link to the board, of which the governor sits on.
"It doesn't matter what people think of me," Joe said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."
by BMAN13 on Jan 31, 2012 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Don't think that......
this hasn’t crossed my half-witted mind…..it is not that far fetched considering the political implications….Spanier, the Guv, 2ndMile, Surma, the Ag…I want to hear about their involvement in open court, no only or not in the GJ. The Independent Investigation should hopefully produce some real tangible results.
" The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 31, 2012 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
I really want to have that much faith in the Freeh investigation,
but I don’t know. I just don’t know. There are some serious power players in this both at front and behind the scenes.
If they ever tell my story let them say that I walked with giants. Men rise and fall like the winter wheat, but these names will never die. Let them say I lived in the time of Bradley, tamer of offenses. Let them say I lived in the time of Paterno.
Wasn't going to go there
just because that is far creepier than anything JS is accused of. Half the dimwits that love to comment anonymously about this online don’t even know what Second Mile is/was(?). They have some major explaining to do, but the “journalists” out there don’t seem to give a rat’s ass.
I know some may blow that off as a "crazy conspiracy theory"
but in my mind it really isn’t that far fetched a scenario. It’s probably never provable unfortunately, but it is certainly makes sense and is possible.
If it’s even half true, the calcluated nature of the entire event really frightens me.
If they ever tell my story let them say that I walked with giants. Men rise and fall like the winter wheat, but these names will never die. Let them say I lived in the time of Bradley, tamer of offenses. Let them say I lived in the time of Paterno.
I think it would be interesting to see when the majority of the donations from 2nd Mile board members hit the election coffers of Corbett. Before or after Madeira turned the case over due to conflict.
"It doesn't matter what people think of me," Joe said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
