Skip to comments.Prosecutors change timeline in Jerry Sandusky case...
Posted on 05/07/2012 3:31:39 PM PDT by FlJoePa
Prosecutors no longer thinking that Mike McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in a Penn State locker room the night before spring break in 2002.
Instead, new evidence shows what McQueary saw really happened in February 2001, the attorney general's office said in court paperwork filed today.
In the motion, the prosecutor allude that the change does not affect the allegations of a crime.
Also today, prosecutors responded to a request by Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, for more evidence to be turned over before trial. The judge is expected to rule on that request at a Wednesday court hearing, which Sandusky will not attend.
Sandusky is scheduled for jury selection June 5 on 52 counts of child sex abuse against 10 boys. He denies all of the allegations.
Sandusky’s gonna walk.
I just have a feeling the prosecutor is going to find a way to F it up.
Well, imo he was always going to walk on victim #2. They have no victim and McQueary’s testimony is all over the place. Now they find out the date is off by 13 months. Is it even within the statute of limitations? And how do you continue to prosecute Curley and Schultz after this comes out?
They’ll get him on the kid from Central Mountain High School, but that doesn’t make it a “Penn State” scandal anymore. What fun is that for the media?
Wait til the Paterno family attorneys get done with that University. You think tuition is high now!?
If someone asked me to time an event 10 years prior, I would couch it as an estimate, unless it was associated with a speacial occasion like anniversary, travel etc.
I have to think that's what happened here.
Then, investigators are able to nail it with paper trail, phone logs, emails later.
Well, she charged two PSU administrators with perjury based on the old time line. What happens now? And what IS the statute of limitations? If it is 10 years, it came and went.
Nothing has felt right to me about this case from the beginning. And I would say the truth is at one of the extremes of the story.
Either this is a completely false accusation that will totally fall apart, or it is much, much bigger and will explode when the truth comes out.
There’s something about the story presented so far that has never seemed correct.
"a speacial occasion"
Isn't that special?
So if I give my best estimate of time elapsed, and it is wrong; is it perjury?
If so, then I would give it a broad bracket and say somewhere between 5-10 years ago.
If someone is grilling me on what happened in 2002 and subsequently charges me with perjury over my answers, and then it turns out they change the date by 13 months, I think my attorney might have a bit of a problem with it. And rightfully so.
Sandusky was running a sex ring for homosexuals-—probably had clients who were judges, politicians-—exactly like the Franklin Cover-up and the Producers who raped the Corey boys and are still free producing their filth.
Notice the press is quiet on these people-—not like with the Catholic Church-—Why? Because Hollywood and Sandusky type people think homosexuality is “good” and sodomy is a “right”. Won’t be long before it is legal to rape boys like they do in homosexual nations like Afghanistan and the homosexual Nazis —SS and SA— and they did in Ancient Greece and Japan-—the Samurai, etc., etc.
It is the main reason Judeo-Christian Ethics are under attack and all Christianity (in orthodox form) has to be eliminated. Many churches have been taken over by pagan/Satanists/atheists already —for the one World Religion which will embrace all pagan rites—esp. sodomy. It removes Objective Truth—Right and Wrong—and God and the Principles in the US Constitution. They teach Moral Relativism in all public schools since the 70’s to force their pagan/atheist worldview on our children.
I see what you are saying. The date movement should eliminate the perjury charge.
If someone started asking me about activity in 2002, and I know that timing inaccuracies are considered perjury. I would not answer anything, or make sure that they knew I could not be certain of dates.
Or I would say I'm 80% certain of the time, 100% certain of the event.
Do you have any proof of this or is it just a theory? Because with the whole disapperance of Ray Gricar, you do have to wonder how high up this whole thing went.
You have to wonder why Mike McQueary's father, John, and Dr. Jonathan Dranov, the clinic director who was called to the McQueary household to help advise the McQuearys on what to do, apparently couldn't remember the month of such an important date in their lives. They worked at a clinic to which Sue and Joe Paterno had donated over $1 million, they advised Mike McQueary not to call the police and to call Coach Paterno the next morning to discuss what he'd seen - but it apparently didn't make that much of an impression on them.
...or he's intentionally throwing the case.
The key here is that Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury on the grounds that they lied about what McQueary told them, and lied about what they did with the information.
I have't seen a charge that depends on whether they were told in March or January. If, for example, Schultz claims that in subsequent meetings the issue of sexual abuse by Sandusky was never discussed and the prosecutors believe they have evidence that sexual abuse was discussed, it's not dependent on whether the event happened in January or March.
And that was an example, folks. I'm not going back through the grand jury presentment tonight to find the specific discrepancies that prosecutors could claim were perjury. But they weren't tied to a specific date of disclosure.
That’s fine, but we’re talking about 13 months, not 2 or 3 months. Shouldn’t this all be determined BEFORE bringing charges? Especially for the most explosive, media driven charge (victim #2)?
Also, Amendola has already said he HAD victim #2 as a defense witness, IF the alleged occurrence was in 2001 and not 2002 (until he lawyered up).
This is not good news for the prosecution and leaves them with no victim, no eye witness (to the alleged acts they intentionally inserted in the presentment in an effort to attract more victims), a confused timeline, and a shaky star witness who is all over the map.
Not a good job at all by the AG’s office and a pathetic response by the B.O.T. and the University in general. Oh, and the worst job of all was of course turned in by our own MSM - go figure.