See my prior post. To the extent that the jury accepts that McQueary told a different version of events to Dranov than he now proclaims, that strengthens C&S’ claims that he told them too a different version.
Your have your argument backwords. Sandusky can be 100% guilty of every count, but as long as C&S are not lying about their version of what McQueary told them at the time, they walk. In the SAndusky case, the jury considered Sandusky’s likely guilt in that particular incident in light of what they knew about Sandusky from the other incidents. In the C&S case, it’s just a matter of McQueary’s word against theirs regarding this one incident.
Maybe, but one juror has come forward to say that McQueary’s testimony was “the grimmest and most signficant.” (Those aren’t the juror’s exact words, but come from the linked New York Times article.) And, according to the New York Times, “the jury believed McQueary saw something that night, and while it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he had witnessed a full-on rape, there was no doubting what McQueary had stumbled upon was criminal.” I think that pretty clearly supports my guess.
As for Victim 8, the testimony was slightly more detailed. James Calhoun told others that he had seen Sandusky “pushing” Victim 8 against the shower. The jury apparently felt that was enough to support the “involuntary” element of the charge. McQueary, as far as I can tell, just told the jury he saw Sandusky and Victim 2 engaging in a sex act. I don’t see any testimony about pushing or any other use of force.
As I said today in another thread, it wouldn’t surprise me if she was his first victim. OTOH, it wouldn’t surprise me if she knew and didn’t care. Or, hell, maybe helped the man.
What I can’t buy is her professed complete lack of knowledge.
That’s the jury’s job. It is not the job of required reporters to weigh the evidence. And it is certainly not their job to weigh the evidence, and then lie about it before a grand jury. Again, the ultimate truth of the allegations are meaningless when the crime charged is that “you are supposed to report allegations”.
CNN is reporting some new developments in the perjury case against Schultz and Curley. It’s a lengthy piece, but here are some of the more interesting excerpts.
These all relate to the incident reported by McQueary:
The exchanges certainly make Spanier, Schultz, and Curley (and potentially Paterno as well) look pretty bad.
[It’s worth noting that CNN did not review copies of the actual emails, but claims the content was “made available” to them.]
Meanwhile, let’s not lose sight of the university’s board of trustees, and their staggering incompetence in handling the whole mess. Walter Brasch, who self-describes as a social issues journalist, has a diary up at Booman Tribune wherein he tears them to shreds for their repeated bungling. The piece is sympathetic to Paterno, so take that into account in evaluating it, but well worth a full read.
No, actually it’s not. It has no real facts at all, other than some already public quotes by members of the board of trustees, and makes claims but offers no evidence in support of them about the rationales for the board’s actions.
Assuming that CNN article is accurate, Paterno was clearly dishonest when he said that once he reported the incident “that was the last time the matter was brought to my attention until this investigation and I assumed that the men I referred it to handled the matter appropriately.”
The conversation referred to in the email was 16 days later.
That said, I don’t see why it looks bad for C&S, as many have asserted. There’s no indication in the emails, as reported, that they knew anything more than they claimed to have known. The only thing you see in the emails is that they devoted a lot of consideration to what they should do. I don’t see why that’s bad for them.
ISTM that people are interpreting this as negative only based on the pre-existing notion that C&S were out to cover it up. In light of this, the evidence that they initially were inclined to report it is interpreted as evidence that they must have known it was really really bad. But that’s circular.