Guest View
The prosecution case — once Allan Myers started to change his story — was that Allan never was Victim 2, never was the boy in the shower.
Deputy Attorney General Joe McGettigan said he believes the boy in the shower would have been only 10 years old (which also flies in the face of any standing up rape story), and I think it was ethical of McGettigan to totally dismiss Myers’ story change once Myers started interacting with Shubin.McGettigan tried to be an ethical prosecutor and had big problems with civil lawyer Andrew Shubin as did the police, not trusting his supposedly incriminating evidence. Even the police saying a lot of witness statements by Shubin clients seemed written by Shubin himself.
About my writing in detail about McQueary’s contradiction, it is not about needing further proof of innocence, but rather a postmortem about how a false conviction took place.
Now, the jury never believed there was a rape in the shower, but they did convict on a lesser charge connected with the supposedly unknown boy in the shower.
And the etymology of that lesser charge lies in the notion that McQueary sometimes said he definitely did see something inappropriate.
About why he would say this, if you focus on what he says, he says he and the police believe something inappropriate happened (because of two RHYTHMIC slaps, lol), and the issue lies in the definition of witnessing something.
With a lot of the testimony, a witness will say “Yes, I witnessed it,” for example “I witnessed Sandusky trying to put his hand on my genitals.”
When you read exactly what the witness is saying, they say they and the police decide Sandusky is certainly a predator, and WOULD HAVE wanted to do that, despite the witness never observing it.
So the situation is, the police and a witness agree that something happened which the witness didn’t notice. But it did happen, and they were there, and there was some way (a mirror etc). We know that even though the witness has no memory of the event, they agree they DID WITNESS IT in principle.
If ONLY McQueary had looked in the mirror, he would have seen the rape.
If ONLY Kajak had released Sandusky’s hand, he would have not only known where it was going, but also where it was going.
McQueary never saw a rape, but he can say he WITNESSED it because he agrees it happened while he was there, and the mirror to see it was right in front of him.
Kajak can say he WITNESSED Sandusky trying to put his hand on genitals because he was right there. He KNEW what such a predator is trying, and it only didn’t happen because Kajak would have prevented it by holding the hand.
Note this phenomenon is different than RECOVERED MEMORIES. There are NO memories. The witness admits having NO memories, having observed NOTHING.
But they admit WITNESSING THE CRIME because they were present, they know the crime was about to or did happen, and they just didn’t happen to look in the right direction.
The memories are never RECOVERED, the witnessing is AGREED to have taken place.
Zachary Konstas didn’t get molested, but he knew he WOULD HAVE if the relationship had continued for more years.
My point is that Sandusky is innocent, but also clear that most witnesses are only witnesses because they have AGREED they are witnesses, and just didn’t happen to observe or remember any crime. They AGREE that a crime took place, they AGREE that they were present, and then yet they do not agree with actually seeing or experiencing any crime.
It is possible to admit witnessing something without admitting, remembering witnessing it.
The distinction is important. It is not about false memories.
To be clear, a participant in a trial can admit witnessing something without admitting being aware of the event, or ever having been aware of it.
They agree the event took place, because they accept the police saying there is irrefutable evidence.
They agree that it did/would/must have taken place in such a way that they did/would have/would notice it.
Neither of these implies they DID notice it.
So what you have is an admittedly unobservant witness.
“I was right there when it happened. I must have seen it.”
A good defense lawyer would drill down on “But do you REMEMBER actually seeing it?”
Here is where a therapist gets involved.
Police: What did you see when you looked in the shower?
McQueary: I didn’t look in the shower.
Police: OK. Where did you look?
McQueary: I was getting stuff out of my locker.
Police: And from where you were, there was no way to see into the locker room?
McQueary: There was no way to see anything.
Police: So you’re absolutely sure. You know, there are some other things we need to discuss with you….
McQueary: Well, there is a mirror on the inside of the locker door.
Police: So you could see into the locker room by looking into the mirror?
McQueary: I didn’t try to find out.
Police: So you’re saying, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, if you’d looked into that mirror you would have seen the rape in the shower room.
McQueary: I woudln’t know.
Police: So AS FAR AS YOU KNOW you can’t rule out that if you’d looked into that mirror that is what you would have seen.
McQueary: I guess so.
Police: And you’re saying, you managed to get stuff out of your locker without even looking at the inside of your locker door?
McQueary: I must have looked, yeah.
Police: And if you’d looked, you’d have seen the rape that we already know about.
McQueary: Yeah.
Police: But you said you probably did look.
McQueary:Yeah.
Police: So, you don’t specifically remember looking into the mirror and seeing into the locker room and witnessing the rape.
McQueary: Right.
Police: But you admit that you DID look into the mirror, you must have, and that means you admit you DID witness the rape.
McQueary: Yeah, I must have witnessed it even though it didn’t make an impression on my in the instant.
Police: Did Meredith scream?
Amanda: I wasn’t there. I was at a different house.
Police: We know that you were there.
Police: Sometimes when things happen you don’t remember them because you were traumatized. You say you don’t remember being there, but we know that you were.
Amanda: I have to go to the bathroom.
Police: We’ll let you go in just a minute but we have to settle this first. You don’t remember being there but you were. You were with Patrik Lumumba. Did you hear her scream?
Amanda: No. Look I really have to go to the bathroom.
Police: OK you can go, just one more thing. Why didn’t you hear her scream.
Amanda: I wasn’t there.
Police: We’ve been through that before. You just don’t remember but we know you were there. You have to tell us why you didn’t hear her scream.
Amanda: Maybe ..um…I would have had my hands over my ears?
Police: OK and what can you remember about Patrik being there?
Amanda: Well, if I really try I can bring up fleeting images, yeah, of Patrik.
Mike McQueary is a significant player in the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky.
In 2002, or early 2001, or late 2000, he is uncertain, Mike McQueary, then 27, a Penn State graduate assistant at the time, saw or thought he saw or heard something in the Penn State locker room.
On a Friday evening, McQueary saw or heard Jerry Sandusky and a boy he thought was perhaps around ten taking a shower in the athletic locker room open showers.
McQueary’s story changed many times, not only as to the date, but also what he saw or thought he saw, heard, or imagined.
However, what is consistent is that he reported to his father and family friend Dr. Jonothan Dranov, a mandated reporter, that he saw Sandusky in the Penn State locker room showers with a boy and was concerned. Upon questioning by Dr. Dranov, McQueary admitted he did not witness anything sexual. Dr. Dranove did not believe anything sexual happened that mandated a report.
McQueary also mentioned the matter to head coach Joe Paterno (several months later), and others at Penn State, who did not feel anything inappropriate had occurred.
The incident came to light a decade or more later when State Police questioned a frightened McQueary (who had his own legal and reputational worries).
He told police his Sandusky shower story, and later testified before the grand jury. McQueary changed his position from what he said to his father and Dr. Dranov on the night of the incident.
Now more than a decade later, he was sure it was sexual, though it was not rape.
At some point before the indictment of Sandusky, Allan Meyers came forward and said McQueary was a liar. He was the boy in the shower. He was not 10 at the time, but almost 14, and the sole reason he and Sandusky were in the wide-open athletic showers was that they had just finished working out.
Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina chose to ignore Meyers’ statement, and he illegally mischaracterized McQueary’s testimony in the grand jury to change what McQueary testified as something he thought was or might be sexual, but not rape – to rape.
Then Fina illegally leaked the grand jury material to local reporter Sara Ganim, which became national news with the presumption of guilt on Sandusky.
It soon became common knowledge that any “victim” of Sandusky would collect millions from Penn State, and Meyers began to consider changing his story.
In 2012, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.
Here is a guest view from John M., who has been observing the Sandusky prosecution from the time it was ongoing to the present.
By John M.