Online Now 784

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 564
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 829
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

FC: From TOS, V2 said he was not abused the night McQueary...

  • ...saw him.

    So now, to convict TC/GS, the prosecution is going to have to prove/show that MM was a liar back in 2001 when he was describing the account to TC/GS, but not a liar today when he's giving his account of his account to TC/GS, to the Jury.

    Uh boy. I'm not lawyer, but that doesn't sound like an easy task when you're trying to convince a jury.

    Sandusky's Unidentified Shower Victim: Not Unidentified, Initially Denied Shower Abuse

    Since Jerry Sandusky was first charged as a serial child molester last November, the prosecution has claimed that the identity of two of his victims was unknown. That claim was even repeated by prosecutor Joseph McGettigan during last weeks arrest.

    deadspin.com

    BoulderFish

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image

    'Just to make it clear, I'm not transferring, I like it here too damn much to leave.' Jordan Kerner

    ejb5212

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    BoulderFish

  • On my phone but I need that throwing my computer smiley

    signature image signature image signature image

    PENN STATE FOREVER

    philafan ●

  • philafan said...

    On my phone but I need that throwing my computer smiley

    type_angry

    PSUBALL10 ●

  • So this article claims that Victim 2 has been identified, did not testify, and claimed he wasn't raped or abused the night he saw McQueary in the showers?

    If this is true, would the original testimony of victim 2 be admissable in the perjury trials, and why wasn't it part of Sandusky's defense?

    signature image

    More than just football

    thefonz

  • thefonz said...

    So this article claims that Victim 2 has been identified, did not testify, and claimed he wasn't raped or abused the night he saw McQueary in the showers?

    If this is true, would the original testimony of victim 2 be admissable in the perjury trials, and why wasn't it part of Sandusky's defense?

    There never was a victim 2 that testified in Sandusky's trial.

    And why he wasn't a part of Sandusky's defense is answered in the article. V2 seemed to be a negative for both, overall.

    BoulderFish

  • thefonz said...

    So this article claims that Victim 2 has been identified, did not testify, and claimed he wasn't raped or abused the night he saw McQueary in the showers?

    If this is true, would the original testimony of victim 2 be admissable in the perjury trials, and why wasn't it part of Sandusky's defense?

    The identity of Victim 2 is still up for debate.

    As for your second question, Victim 2 has stated that he was abused by Sandusky, so his testimony would not help Sandusky, only PSU.

    I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he was a critical witness in the perjury trials. Either McQueary lied and said he saw sexual abuse that didn't occur, or he has embellished the story from what he originally told the defendants.

    Either way, he is highly unreliable if Victim 2's claim that he was not molested on the night in question is accurate.

    F the NCAA F the BOT F ESPN F Sandusky

    PSU42Fan ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    SickOLBs

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    BoulderFish

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    BLEEDINGPSU

  • PSU42Fan said...

    The identity of Victim 2 is still up for debate.

    As for your second question, Victim 2 has stated that he was abused by Sandusky, so his testimony would not help Sandusky, only PSU.

    I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he was a critical witness in the perjury trials. Either McQueary lied and said he saw sexual abuse that didn't occur, or he has embellished the story from what he originally told the defendants.

    Either way, he is highly unreliable if Victim 2's claim that he was not molested on the night in question is accurate.

    It won't be up for to debate if he testifies that he saw McQueary peaking into the shower on that night.

    helpdesk ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    stigs007 ●

  • thefonz said...

    So this article claims that Victim 2 has been identified, did not testify, and claimed he wasn't raped or abused the night he saw McQueary in the showers? ...

    MM never testified he SAW anything, period. Because he didn't see anything. He testified that he HEARD rhythmic slapping sounds reminiscent of sexual activity!

    Now, take your thumb and forefinger and pinch your cheek. With your mouth ajar and plenty of saliva lubricating the inside of your mouth, begin to push pull your pinched cheek back and forth repeatedly and very fast. This is the "slap, slap, slapping, slap" sound that McQ heard. He didn't see squat. Just made a mental image after hearing the sounds that is was "extremely sexual"

    I doubt he hinted anything "extremely sexual" to JP, TC or GS at the time he "HEARD" this "evidence".

    MM saw nothing, his imagination conjured a mental image of something "of a sexual nature".

    'nuff said.

    signature image

    Fantastik! Is really formula 409! WE ARE....

    psufankc63

  • http://www.framingpaterno.com/if-bombshell-goes-forest-and-sara-ganim-misreports-it-does-it-still-make-sound

    Please read this!

    signature image signature image signature image

    Bedford2108

  • thefonz said...

    So this article claims that Victim 2 has been identified, did not testify, and claimed he wasn't raped or abused the night he saw McQueary in the showers?

    If this is true, would the original testimony of victim 2 be admissable in the perjury trials, and why wasn't it part of Sandusky's defense?

    This mess is about as convoluted as anything I've ever seen, but to answer your question (I think), V2 wasn't called by the defense because he found a civil attorney who whispered in his ear something to the effect, "just go with the flow, PSU will settle up and we'll both make a heavy score." My question is did AG Kelly know this information yet proceed with her charge of anal rape during the presentment? One thing is for certain, MM has become totally unbelievable to me.

    tomdee

  • psufankc63 said...

    MM never testified he SAW anything, period. Because he didn't see anything. He testified that he HEARD rhythmic slapping sounds reminiscent of sexual activity!

    Now, take your thumb and forefinger and pinch your cheek. With your mouth ajar and plenty of saliva lubricating the inside of your mouth, begin to push pull your pinched cheek back and forth repeatedly and very fast. This is the "slap, slap, slapping, slap" sound that McQ heard. He didn't see squat. Just made a mental image after hearing the sounds that is was "extremely sexual"

    I doubt he hinted anything "extremely sexual" to JP, TC or GS at the time he "HEARD" this "evidence".

    MM saw nothing, his imagination conjured a mental image of something "of a sexual nature".

    'nuff said.

    Agree, and your comment not withstanding, why didn't MM speak up during the AGs presentment when she described V2s anal rape?

    tomdee

  • psufankc63 said...

    MM never testified he SAW anything, period. Because he didn't see anything. He testified that he HEARD rhythmic slapping sounds reminiscent of sexual activity!

    Now, take your thumb and forefinger and pinch your cheek. With your mouth ajar and plenty of saliva lubricating the inside of your mouth, begin to push pull your pinched cheek back and forth repeatedly and very fast. This is the "slap, slap, slapping, slap" sound that McQ heard. He didn't see squat. Just made a mental image after hearing the sounds that is was "extremely sexual"

    I doubt he hinted anything "extremely sexual" to JP, TC or GS at the time he "HEARD" this "evidence".

    MM saw nothing, his imagination conjured a mental image of something "of a sexual nature".

    'nuff said.

    From the article, I got the impression that victim 2 saw M McQueary. Otherwise, how could he claim he wasn't abused "that night".

    Nothing to do with what MM saw.

    signature image

    More than just football

    thefonz

  • Read this earlier today:

    Analysis: Jerry Sandusky prosecutor says two victims are unidentified, contradicting attorney claims

    Victim 2, his identity and his story, could have an impact on the perjury trial of Penn State administrators.

    www.pennlive.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001

  • They better not have messed this up that badly. The last thing anyone wants is for sandusky to get a second chance

    psufromwb

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image

    Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto

    RWC5113 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    BLEEDINGPSU

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    WE ARE! And we will always be...

    rmj147

  • FYI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCMLuUZIHL8&feature=player_embedded

    tomdee

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports