New McQueary story explains variations?? Reply
From a phone call with John Ziegler today - A story from a contact in SC who knows McQueary
He says Joe - when called to the Grand Jury - had no memory of any meeting with McQueary
Not wanting to appear senile he called McQueary to find out what McQueary told him in 2001
that's how he came up with the "fondling' and "a sexual nature" He really had no clue about it.
So that's what he told the Grand Jury. Joe did not want to appear as if he had a faulty memory.
Turns out McQueary never told any of them about anything but being upset about seeing JS In the shower with a boy
he never said anything about sexual contact - that the boy "victim 2" appeared completely normal in 2001
The AG investigators guilt tripped McQueary into "enhancing" his 2001 account for the grand jury and he and Joe thought they would just be minor players in an investigation with multiple victims they knew nothing about since victim 2 was unidentified. McQueary went along with it to help the prosecutors never having a clue how it would hurt PSU.
Once the Presentment came out he was trapped.
This makes more sense than anything I've heard. Mike thinks he's helping the AG by 'enhancing his recall of 2001 and has no idea it could ever harm Joe or PSU" He just wants to help put JS away. The prosecutors make him feel guilty about not getting a better observation in 2001 and let him know that boys have been harmed because of it. He tries to help out but ends up trapping himself when the presentment comes out and everything falls on PSU. Now if he recants it could be grounds for an appeal.
But this seems to make sense given the different versions told by his Dad, Dr Dranov, Joe, Tim and Gary and his Perjury Hearing Testimony
If this is true then Mike really screwed Joe and PSU without meaning to do that. But still the result is horrible.
That story appears on BSD like this
John Ziegler, a talk show host/film writer dropped the juiciest nugget I've heard to date on PS4RS fb last night. He says that he spoke with a VERY well placed source (not in the paterno family) that there is a very different explanation for Joe's grand jury testimony than anything we've heard to date. He pretty much says that it has to do with how Joe was prepped and how the other core 3 were prepped. Spanier, Curly, and Schulz who were all prepped by Baldwin all have similar stories (horseplay) whereas Joe declined assistance from Baldwin and had something different (sexual). Ziegler said that the source said that when it was reported back then in 2001 by MM it was not nearly as big a deal as the media is making it out to be because MM never told a single person including Joe Paterno that it was sexual. Dr Dranov asked MM if it was sexual 5 times and MM responded no each time… and then he went to Joe and told him. The source says that immediately after being summoned by the grand jury Joe went to MM because he was having trouble remembering exactly what happened back then (since it really was not that big a deal at the time, he was barely involved, and frankly he's an old man). MM then tells Joe that he def mentioned the word sexual in there 10 years ago to cover his behind… which isn't so farfetched to think about when you consider that the 5 other adults that talked with MM in immediately after this (including MM's dad) all say that MM didn't mention anything sexual.
This post was edited on 7/30 3:42 PM by aurabass4psu
