I heard on the news yesterday that soon after getting the case, the jury asked for certain repeats of Mike McCreery’s testimony.
I don’t know what will happen but I found that encouraging, in that he is the only eyewitness to an actual incident in progress, whereas the victims all told their stories while the defense said they were making them up for money.
Focusing on McCreery right off the bat seemed to me a sign they at least knew where to focus like a laser beam...
They asked for Mike McQueary's testimony and the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov.
The night McQueary went to his father's home, John McQueary called Dranov, who was the medical director of the clinic where John McQueary worked (for what it's worth, a medical clinic to which the Paternos had donated over $1 million).
From previous testimony, Dranov pressured McQueary three times about whether he actually saw sex. In this trial, Dranov said that Mike McQueary told him that night that he heard the sounds, saw the boy, and saw a male arm wrap around the boy and pull him out of sight. Then, according to Dranov, Mike saw Sandusky and the boy leave the showers (after Mike McQueary's locker-slamming incident).
This contradict's McQueary's testimony of seeing Sandusky in the shower with the victim.
It may just be me, but the slapping sounds, the male arm around the boy, and Sandusky leaving the shower with the boy - physicians in Pennsylvania are required to report suspected child sexual abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311.
The more Dranov downplays what he claims McQueary says, the more Dranov frees himself from failing to report suspected child sexual abuse as a physician. And for the conspiracy theorists, if Dranov has loyalty to Paterno as a major clinic supporter, getting a non-guilty verdict on the Penn State shower incident, and downplaying the 'sexual' aspect of McQueary's story at the time of the incident, helps give Paterno a pass on his inaction. It also will help Tim Curley and Gary Schultz in their trials.