Post by aurabass on Jul 9, 2012 18:12:22 GMT -5
The rather famous Where's Waldo would put it like this:
We however are given the full transcripts of the Grand Jury Testimonies of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who are charged with Perjury for some statements made in this document found on pages 178 through 235 of the Perjury Hearing Transcript. This is all the prosecution can use to prove Perjury - a willful statement under oath known by the witness to be untrue.
The prosecution is using these statements trying to recall what was said in a 10 minute meeting between Mike McQueary and AD Curley with VP Schultz in February of 2001 - a decade prior to the Grand Jury testimony. Prosecutors evidently intend to use the testimony of Joe Paterno on pages 174 thru 178 of the same document to corroborate Mike McQueary. This is an 85 year old football coach trying to recall what Mike told him in a separate 10 minute meeting 10 days prior to the McQueary meeting with Tim and Gary.
My opinion is that this prosecution is frivolous and is extremely prejudicial for these reasons:
I believe Mike's statement "I would have said extremely sexual and I think it was intercourse" In speaking with Tim and Gary is the pertinent statement relied on by the prosecution and found here in Mike's only answer concerning what he said to Tim and Gary
It was Tim's statement that he never heard intercourse or extremely sexual from Mike
Gary Schultz gave his impression of what Mike was trying to say
So we get the disclaimers "I don't recall what McQueary specifically reported" "My impression was" and "I cannot recall the specific conversation and how Mike said it" - with these statements trying to recall a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past. Is that perjury?
Mike could have said "I think it was sexual but all I got were one or two second glances and I expected to see two adults having sex since the 2 or 3 slapping sounds informed my visualizations.
If Mike's 5 or 6 minute description of what happened that night (see the first image above) included these last statements about visualizations and one or two seconds how might that inform Tim & Gary about the nature of Mike's story? I know it would make me think he could likely be mistaken if he "would have said extremely sexual or thought intercourse"
So here's the challenge to anyone who thinks they can build a solid case for Perjury that will convince a majority of BSD readers in a poll that this trial will end in conviction based on what we know as of July 10 2012. Tomorrow is another Perjury Trial Hearing and we may know something more.
Some believe the leaked email snippets will support the perjury charges since they indicate that Tim Curley took what Mike alleged seriously enough to look into the situation by contacting JS, Joe, and Dr. Raykovitz and that a bill from attorneys for 3 hours of legal research shows they knew they were dealing with a reported sex act that left them vulnerable. You are welcome to use this information in building a case for conviction of Tim and Gary.
You will provide your case for conviction to me via email and I will add my argument for the defense. The result will be posted on The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal site and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Forum and on BSD with a poll that will say vote YES if you believe this is a valid case for convicting Tim and Gary or Perjury or NO if you do not. Submissions receiving a majority of YES votes will be polled to determine the most popular of them and that submission will be awarded the $100 via check or PayPal
With all the lawyers on here complaining of being out of work this should be a way to gain some cash for 2 hours of effort.
We however are given the full transcripts of the Grand Jury Testimonies of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who are charged with Perjury for some statements made in this document found on pages 178 through 235 of the Perjury Hearing Transcript. This is all the prosecution can use to prove Perjury - a willful statement under oath known by the witness to be untrue.
The prosecution is using these statements trying to recall what was said in a 10 minute meeting between Mike McQueary and AD Curley with VP Schultz in February of 2001 - a decade prior to the Grand Jury testimony. Prosecutors evidently intend to use the testimony of Joe Paterno on pages 174 thru 178 of the same document to corroborate Mike McQueary. This is an 85 year old football coach trying to recall what Mike told him in a separate 10 minute meeting 10 days prior to the McQueary meeting with Tim and Gary.
My opinion is that this prosecution is frivolous and is extremely prejudicial for these reasons:
I believe Mike's statement "I would have said extremely sexual and I think it was intercourse" In speaking with Tim and Gary is the pertinent statement relied on by the prosecution and found here in Mike's only answer concerning what he said to Tim and Gary
It was Tim's statement that he never heard intercourse or extremely sexual from Mike
Gary Schultz gave his impression of what Mike was trying to say
So we get the disclaimers "I don't recall what McQueary specifically reported" "My impression was" and "I cannot recall the specific conversation and how Mike said it" - with these statements trying to recall a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past. Is that perjury?
Mike could have said "I think it was sexual but all I got were one or two second glances and I expected to see two adults having sex since the 2 or 3 slapping sounds informed my visualizations.
If Mike's 5 or 6 minute description of what happened that night (see the first image above) included these last statements about visualizations and one or two seconds how might that inform Tim & Gary about the nature of Mike's story? I know it would make me think he could likely be mistaken if he "would have said extremely sexual or thought intercourse"
So here's the challenge to anyone who thinks they can build a solid case for Perjury that will convince a majority of BSD readers in a poll that this trial will end in conviction based on what we know as of July 10 2012. Tomorrow is another Perjury Trial Hearing and we may know something more.
Some believe the leaked email snippets will support the perjury charges since they indicate that Tim Curley took what Mike alleged seriously enough to look into the situation by contacting JS, Joe, and Dr. Raykovitz and that a bill from attorneys for 3 hours of legal research shows they knew they were dealing with a reported sex act that left them vulnerable. You are welcome to use this information in building a case for conviction of Tim and Gary.
You will provide your case for conviction to me via email and I will add my argument for the defense. The result will be posted on The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal site and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Forum and on BSD with a poll that will say vote YES if you believe this is a valid case for convicting Tim and Gary or Perjury or NO if you do not. Submissions receiving a majority of YES votes will be polled to determine the most popular of them and that submission will be awarded the $100 via check or PayPal
With all the lawyers on here complaining of being out of work this should be a way to gain some cash for 2 hours of effort.