Post by aurabass on Jul 7, 2012 17:30:52 GMT -5
THIS IS OFFERED FOR ANY INPUT YOU WOULD CARE TO GIVE TO FURTHER THE EFFORTS OF THE DEFENSE TO USE THE PERJURY TRIAL AS A MEANS OF DEFENDING PSU AND JOE PATERNO. anything you may have noticed that might be overlooked could be valuable.
How would you defend Tim Curley and Gary Schultz against the charges of perjury brought by the Attorney General? OR if you prefer how you would convict them as a prosecutor.
Can the Perjury Trial also be used defend Joe Paterno and Penn State by not only clearing Tim and Gary of Perjury but in the process making their decision in 2001 seem reasonable and nothing like a cover up? Once you have built your case that Tim and Gary did not perjure themselves can you address the larger issue of what they were told by Joe Paterno?
That Joe did nothing to discourage them from reporting to authorities
That all they asked Joe was his opinion based on 30 years or working with JS.
That Joe had no reason to think JS could harm the kids he seemed so intent on helping and that the 1998 information he had heard made him less likely to think JS was a pedophile because he was cleared?
Will Roberto and Farrell be using the 1 or 2 seconds and the visualizations along with the "I would have said" testimony from the Perjury Hearing to discredit Mike's claim of what he saw and would have reported as an extremely sexual act?
Will Mike's description of feet on floor, not bent over, very little motion, boy's height relative to JS will be demonstrated with pictures or mannequins?
First a shot of a large male of JS height with a boy standing beside him top of head level with pectorals
Then the boy facing a wall upright with hands outstretched
Then with the man behind him
THESE ARE THE WORDS USED BY MIKE McQUEARY UNDER OATH AT THE PERJURY HEARING
You can use these as a start or go to the transcript for others to find statements that cast doubt on what Mike saw and what he said
VISUALIZATIONS and I WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE page 56 line 14
A SECOND OR TWO GLANCE page 12 line 12
MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS page 14 line 17
SLAPPING SOUNDS BEFORE GLANCES NO SOUND DURING page 15/16
WHAT MIKE WOULD HAVE SAID?
DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK - WAS NOT SURE 104
DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER CONTACTED BY AG p 57
VERY CLEAR IT LOOKED LIKE INTERCOURSE
NOT SMART TO MAKE A RECORD? p 89
It seems to me that Farrell and Roberto can be quite effective using Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony.
His claim of 3 slapping sounds being either rhythmic or sexual can be tested?
Play sounds of wet hands on a shower room wall
Wet feet on a shower room floor
Wet hand slapping a bare stomach or thighs in a shower
and ask if any or all of those sounds were like what he heard?
What makes them "rhythmic" or "sexual"?
What did he mean about those "visualizations"?
Why did he only glance for 1 or 2 seconds?
Why did he think the boy did not cry out or show pain or distress?
Did that make him wonder what he was seeing?
Why didn't he question the decision when informed?
How did he live with it for a decade without protest?
How can a 6 foot 4 man of his size rape a boy only as tall as his pectorals if the boy is not bent over and has his feet on the floor?
A PERJURY TRIAL IS ABOUT EXACT WORDS.
What were his exact words?
Why did he say "I would have said" or "I thought" instead of I told them and I saw?
Why didn't he protest the decision if he thought he saw a rape?
Could Jerry have been grabbing the boy from behind to stop him from running around or falling?
Could you flash pictures like these of a man and boy on a screen for 1.5 seconds each
A) A man picking up a boy after a fall
B) A man grabbing a boy to prevent a fall
C) A man trying to mimic sodomy from that position
and ask Mike to say which one was the sodomy?
Can that be done in a deposition?
What questions would you use and how would you go about clearing Tim and Gary and as a result clearing PSU and Joe Paterno in the most effective way? OR If you prefer to be the prosecutor please show us how you would prove perjury at the Grand Jury using the link just below.
The Pennsylvania Perjury Statute - the state must prove Tim and Gary said something they did not believe was true in their Grand Jury Testimony that is available HERE Curley p 179 thru 204 Schultz 204 - 235
ยง 4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a
felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he
makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when
the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of
the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if
it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.
It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is
material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to
prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was
administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the
declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document
purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when
the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to
have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense
under this section if he retracted the falsification in the
course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became
manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and
before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made
inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation,
both having been made within the period of the statute of
limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the
inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the
alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by
the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the
prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one
or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be
true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section,
except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a
statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony
of a single witness.
How would you defend Tim Curley and Gary Schultz against the charges of perjury brought by the Attorney General? OR if you prefer how you would convict them as a prosecutor.
Can the Perjury Trial also be used defend Joe Paterno and Penn State by not only clearing Tim and Gary of Perjury but in the process making their decision in 2001 seem reasonable and nothing like a cover up? Once you have built your case that Tim and Gary did not perjure themselves can you address the larger issue of what they were told by Joe Paterno?
That Joe did nothing to discourage them from reporting to authorities
That all they asked Joe was his opinion based on 30 years or working with JS.
That Joe had no reason to think JS could harm the kids he seemed so intent on helping and that the 1998 information he had heard made him less likely to think JS was a pedophile because he was cleared?
Will Roberto and Farrell be using the 1 or 2 seconds and the visualizations along with the "I would have said" testimony from the Perjury Hearing to discredit Mike's claim of what he saw and would have reported as an extremely sexual act?
Will Mike's description of feet on floor, not bent over, very little motion, boy's height relative to JS will be demonstrated with pictures or mannequins?
First a shot of a large male of JS height with a boy standing beside him top of head level with pectorals
Then the boy facing a wall upright with hands outstretched
Then with the man behind him
THESE ARE THE WORDS USED BY MIKE McQUEARY UNDER OATH AT THE PERJURY HEARING
You can use these as a start or go to the transcript for others to find statements that cast doubt on what Mike saw and what he said
VISUALIZATIONS and I WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE page 56 line 14
A SECOND OR TWO GLANCE page 12 line 12
MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS page 14 line 17
SLAPPING SOUNDS BEFORE GLANCES NO SOUND DURING page 15/16
WHAT MIKE WOULD HAVE SAID?
DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK - WAS NOT SURE 104
DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER CONTACTED BY AG p 57
VERY CLEAR IT LOOKED LIKE INTERCOURSE
NOT SMART TO MAKE A RECORD? p 89
It seems to me that Farrell and Roberto can be quite effective using Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony.
His claim of 3 slapping sounds being either rhythmic or sexual can be tested?
Play sounds of wet hands on a shower room wall
Wet feet on a shower room floor
Wet hand slapping a bare stomach or thighs in a shower
and ask if any or all of those sounds were like what he heard?
What makes them "rhythmic" or "sexual"?
What did he mean about those "visualizations"?
Why did he only glance for 1 or 2 seconds?
Why did he think the boy did not cry out or show pain or distress?
Did that make him wonder what he was seeing?
Why didn't he question the decision when informed?
How did he live with it for a decade without protest?
How can a 6 foot 4 man of his size rape a boy only as tall as his pectorals if the boy is not bent over and has his feet on the floor?
A PERJURY TRIAL IS ABOUT EXACT WORDS.
What were his exact words?
Why did he say "I would have said" or "I thought" instead of I told them and I saw?
Why didn't he protest the decision if he thought he saw a rape?
Could Jerry have been grabbing the boy from behind to stop him from running around or falling?
Could you flash pictures like these of a man and boy on a screen for 1.5 seconds each
A) A man picking up a boy after a fall
B) A man grabbing a boy to prevent a fall
C) A man trying to mimic sodomy from that position
and ask Mike to say which one was the sodomy?
Can that be done in a deposition?
What questions would you use and how would you go about clearing Tim and Gary and as a result clearing PSU and Joe Paterno in the most effective way? OR If you prefer to be the prosecutor please show us how you would prove perjury at the Grand Jury using the link just below.
The Pennsylvania Perjury Statute - the state must prove Tim and Gary said something they did not believe was true in their Grand Jury Testimony that is available HERE Curley p 179 thru 204 Schultz 204 - 235
ยง 4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a
felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he
makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when
the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of
the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if
it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.
It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is
material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to
prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was
administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the
declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document
purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when
the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to
have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense
under this section if he retracted the falsification in the
course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became
manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and
before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made
inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation,
both having been made within the period of the statute of
limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the
inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the
alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by
the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the
prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one
or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be
true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section,
except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a
statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony
of a single witness.