Well Bryan Ekers I guess we can count “he could have been playing Hide the Soap” as one of SA’s three reasonable points.
If you could put things in quote boxes, it would be helpful. When there’s a statement like “a source has confirmed to me…” it’s hard to know if you’re speaking for yourself or quoting someone else. Although I must admit, you haven’t spoken much for yourself in this thread.
And if the defense knew the identity of Victim 2, why didn’t they call him to refute McQueary’s testimony?
Well, that interpretation creates more inconsistencies in McQueary’s behaviour, in that he didn’t follow-through in 2001 and essentially was silent for nearly a decade until his pre-trial statements.
Of course, the real meat of the issue is that McQueary (and Paterno and Curley and Schultz) didn’t follow-through, alert police, and find out the facts in a timely manner, which include identifying and questioning the child - assuming he wasn’t a complete fabrication of McQueary’s.
- That is exactly why Mike McQueary did not separate the boy from Jerry Sandusky.
- That is exactly why MM never dialed 911.
- That is exactly why mandated reporter Dr. John McQueary never dialed 911/DPW/CYS.
- That is exactly why mandated reporter Dr. Jonathan Dranov never dialed 911/DPW/CYS.
That is exactly why Dr. Jonathan Dranov testified under oath that he asked MM three times if the shower scene was “sexual,” and three times MM said no. - That is exactly why MM took his dog for a walk before talking to Joe Paterno the next morning.
- That is exactly why MM told JVP he was “comfortable” with the actions taken in response to his report.
- That is exactly why MM continued to participate in public functions with JS.
IMO, the same two investigators who were unknowingly caught on tape conspiring on ways to get V4 (?) to make charges of rape also approached MM with a half-true story about the monster JS had become, and since MM was the only eyewitness that could deliver the testimony needed for a guilty conviction on Sandusky, MM cooperated and delivered an emboldened testimony without anticipating the unintended world of damage that would follow. That’s why the state prosecutor (AG) expressed her concern when JVP was fired.
What we don’t know is Mike McQueary’s motivation. Did he want to be a hero? Did he want to make up for an oversight 10 years ago. Was he cooperating to avoid being charged himself? Let’s hope the answers are revealed as time goes.
Liar. Liar, liar, liar. (No surprise there, I know. Coals to Newcastle and all that. Sorry.)
I (and many, many others) said repeatedly that the issue was failure to report, and failure to follow up on the report, of what could even by the most skeptical analysis be “possible sexual contact between Sandusky and a child” based upon McQueary’s description of the shower incident he viewed. Indeed, Sandusky was convicted of sexual assaults in his trial, based upon the self-same testimony. Anal rape was only one possible form of illegal and abhorrent sexual contact, but it is the one you, not we, have fixated upon because you think that McQueary’s inability to see Sandusky’s dick inside the ass of that poor kid somehow absolves your hero of moral failures. That is just plain stupid, and it makes you look pathetic.
Further, your penchant for substituting opinions and fantasies of your own creation for things like facts and historical records has made you a laughing stock on these boards. We might merely pity you, if your delusions brought you some comfort. But clearly your fantasy world populated by hippies hell bent upon destroying the sacred institutions you held dear as a child is a very scary place for you, and causes you considerable misery. So much so that you actually turn your own sad, sick performance in this thread into a perversion of reality in which you are winning!!
And so we don’t pity you at all. After this thread we are disgusted by you and your blind, warped apologia. We engage you now clinically, and from a distance, as one would examine scarab beetles in a huge pile of steaming fresh dung. We poke it with a stick. We watch what slimy and shit encrusted thing crawls out next. And we laugh. Winning? Yeah, keep on telling yourself.
I dunno… your leap from “IMO” to “exactly why” is too great, going from recognizing something as a matter of opinion in lieu of hard fact, then assuming that opinion as fact to support further conclusions.
And just to prove how fucked up you are, you think that people who think you are an asshole and don;t agree with you are a greater danger than child rapists.
Well, let’s establish a ratio, shall we?
I assume 1 conclusion-jumper (CJ) is not a greater threat to society and justice and basic human safety (GTSJBHS) than 100 Jerry Sanduskys (JS).
The suggestion is that when CJs reach a sufficient number, Paterno et al would be lynched. I’m assuming this needs a group of at least thirty or so, judging from pictures of lynchings from the 1930s and earlier. Arguably, Matthew Shepherd was lynched by only two men, but he was a fairly small fellow who’d been tricked into their truck and driven to an isolated area, while I assume Starving Artist was picturing an outraged mob seizing Paterno and others at their homes or workplaces.
So, 30 CJ has a GTSJBHS than 100 JS?
I invite corrections of my various assumptions if they seem unsupported.
Sandusky’s lawyer says? Really? Forgive me, but I am not gonna take anything from his legal team at face value. I clicked on your link, then another link therein, then another…and I came across a link to website of a firm claiming to be Victim 2’s attorney
Bolding mine.
Offered for whatever it is worth.
NoLittlePants, would you please provide cites when you make your assertions of fact? Thank you.
Aha! I knew it! So you’re saying that it’s 14 Kids of Gerald’s in a Full Penn Dressingroom?
Yeah, yeah… and Sandusky did it in the ballroom with his lead pipe.
Apparently the alleged Victim 2 is claiming that he was abused, but just not in that particular shower incident.
The relevance is not so much to Sandusky’s guilt or innocence, but to what MM saw, which of course has tremendous bearing on what he is likely to have told JP et al.
Even McQueary showed some later confusion about the timing of the incident, didn’t he? I recall some Paterno apologists trying to get mileage out of a 2001/2002 conflict. Is V2 specifically saying “I remember that a red-haired man saw Sandusky and me in the shower room and that no assault took place that night” ?
I guess we’ll have to wait until V2 goes on the record.
That doesn’t really answer my question. Why not call Victim 2 to refute McQueary’s testimony on those counts of the indictment for which it’s relevant? That he was abused at other times shouldn’t matter[sup]*[/sup] if Sandusky wasn’t charged for those offenses.
- “Shouldn’t matter” in terms of the trial. I’m sure it matters a great deal to those involved.
I dunno, I kind of sort of have this feeling that having a witness called by the defense testify that JS had molested him many times would not have been helpful to JS’ attempt to convince the jury that he was not a child molestor and that all claims against him were false. YMMV.
Bryan, I can’t try to position my strong opinion/theory as absolute fact. Please keep this in mind whenever contemplating my content. FWIW, I am still open to all possibilities as more information becomes available, but I strongly disagree with the general narrative.
Phipps has the gist.
You may think you are fighting for truth, justice, and the American way, but it’s too late for that. You are far better off dropping the subject for the moment and maybe brining it up in another couple of years’ time if you really feel the need. No one is going to change their mind at this point in time.
I just about get that for you this all about Paterno, and not Sandusky. But that’s only cause I have read very little of it. I suspect the more of this stuff I would read the more convuluted things would get.
If Paterno didn’t actually enable any of this then eventually history will change its judgement of him. That always happens.
And for the record, all the above is not necessarily indicative of my viewpoint, it is just advice.
For Starving Artist, it stopped being about changing people’s minds (one could argue it was never about this, I suspect) at least 1500 posts ago and became all about “Winning!”
Apparent to who?
I haven’t seen a cite for this. Do you have a story from a reputable news source? A statement from the alleged victim? Or from a spokesperson for the alleged victim? Or the alleged victim’s lawyer? Someone who doesn’t work for Sandusky and is not just repeating what those who work for Sandusky say?
NoLittlePlans’s deadspin cite only tells what Sandusky’s lawyers allege and offers nothing to back it up. Lawyers talking to reporters on behalf of their defendant clients may be distorting the truth…or pulling it right out of their asses.