<p>If it seemed that I was implying that, then I wasn’t communicating clearly. My suggestion was that now, after the fact, it is possible that the defense (and, who knows, even prosecution) could manufacture a “victim” to back up their version of the events. </p>
<p>I completely support any accused person’s right to a fair defense. Here we have the luxury of discussing the issue without having that person’s fate in our hands.</p>
<p>“McQueary has stated (apparently in an email to friends) that he reported the incident to the police. The police state they they had no report from McQueary. Someone is not being truthful.”</p>
<p>Which police? Campus police? If so, would not be first at PSU to be “covering up” or flat out denying what was told to them by McQ. There is a pattern here if you have not noticed.</p>
<p>“So I have to wonder if the young man to whom Sandusky’s lawyer is referring is not really the boy McQueary claims to have observed…”</p>
<p>I agree. It is very possible this could be any number of young boys Sandusky showered with and not at all necessarily the one witnessed by McQ.</p>
<p>There may be several boys willing to testify they showered and only showered with Sandusky in 2002 and that nothing else happened. That may well be true. But, if that were to happen it would not mean that McQ did not witness what he says he did. Was anything done at the time to find out who this boys was by McQ, Paterno, Curley, Shultz or the “police”? If not, I would imagine it would be very difficult to find out who it was unless they were to come forward and corroborate McQ’s statements. Otherwise, there would be doubt as to whether it was “the” specific victim in question, since Sandusky supposedly showered with numerous boys.</p>
<p>^^^^
This is what I have been trying to say! Obviously, not clearly. He may have showered with many boys and not abused all of them so the defense could get in contact with any one of those boys and claim he was the one. THAT boy didn’t see McQueary because McQueary wasn’t there that night.</p>
<p>^ I knew what you were saying. I was just reiterating that unless a victim corroborated McQ’s story, it would be virtually impossible to tell if that boy was “the” victim or not.</p>
<p>Right! Thanks, Ohiomom!</p>
<p>Personally, I’d think McQueary is highly credible, if only because of this: What possible benefit could it be to him to make this story up?</p>
<p>Sandusky says he gave the name to Curley because Curley asked him about the report by McQuery.</p>
<p>If this case were only about the incident McQueary witnessed, then there would be no case without the victim. It would never be prosecuted.</p>
<p>“Sandusky says he gave the name to Curley because Curley asked him about the report by McQuery.”</p>
<p>I’m not so sure you could trust the accused to provide the name of the victim. That’s the point of posts above. There were supposedly several boys showering with Sandusky. What would stop Sandusky from naming one of the boys he only showered with, especially if McQ truly witnessed the crime?</p>
<p>For me, the chilling thing is that I used to say hello to Paterno while walking my baby boy in his stroller when I worked at PSU. My son is about the age of some of the victims. If we had stayed there, who knows whether that ver loose _association with Paterno might have led to an invitation to meet the players or coaches and some association with Sandusky. My son was well cared for, but its not unusual for people to assume a kid being raised by one parent is somehow at risk. The fact is that such kids are sometimes at risk for being groomed by men who pay attention to them. Just being male and seeming like a benefactor can be enough to get power over a young boy. The way that Paterno and others neglected their duty to report the concerns is typical in a large percentage of organizations. The take home message is to guard your kids. Don’t hand them over. Insist on being present or at least having two adults present at all times.</p>
<p>They had a specific date. Curley and Sandusky and McQuery were talking about a certain date. Now I have no idea if Curley ever contacted the person but he asked Sandusky about a certain date not who he ever showered with but who he was showering with when McQuery saw him. He gave that name.</p>
<p>So? Still does not guarantee he would have provided the correct name. Wish every crime were so easily solved, just ask the accused for the details and there you have it.</p>
<p>We really will not know unless Curley is called and testifies that he interviewed the child and confirms that the child told him was the boy in the shower that specific night.</p>
<p>however Curley is already deemed to have possibly committed perjury, so how would he be someone to be relied upon for that info?</p>
<p>At Sandusky’s trial there will be no mention of Curley and perjury. Plus Curley is only verifying the name Sandusky gave him and if he contacted that person.</p>
<p>^see what you’re saying tom but I was simply talking about whether Curley could actually be believed. And even though it will not be revealed that the GJ report found Curley to not be credible, it is unlikely jurors won’t already be aware of this.</p>
<p>tom, do you think it’s possible that, if he was indeed asked, Sandusky gave the name of a different boy? One with whom he didn’t have a sexual relationship?</p>
<p>It is also possible that Curley may have been exonerated by the time Sandusky goes to trial also.
LasMas- he claims he is innocent. The prosecutor does not have a victim. The defense claims they know who it was in the shower.</p>
<p>8 people on at place of employment were indicted in 2007. When my family read about it in the paper they asked me who all these evil people were- what crooks. They helped steal over a million dollars. It is now 5 years later all the charges have been dropped against 5 of them. 3 remain on trial but the attorney general has delayed the start of the trial so many times that the judge ordered that all 3 be placed back on the payroll so they have been getting paid for years now. You see there is no case but they push forward with what they believe- the grand jury report is scathing and so far none of it is true. The final 3 are being offered sweet heart deals to plead guilty to minor charges. The deal is all 3 have to plead or none get the deal- so far one has refused. He is the only one that has the financial ability to fight. His attorney fees are now above $300,000. The other two have lost their homes and all their savings and since the deal says no jail and they keep their pensions they are willing to plead. But are they really guilty or is the prosecutor really interested in saving face? Last we heard all the charges for the one hold out look like they will also be dismissed. Prosecutors make mistakes, grand jury reports are a one sided document that may have no relationship to actual facts.</p>