McQuery to Coach Saturday per ESPN - NOT

[Hearsay]

There apparently is now something that the actual grand jury testimony (remember, all we saw was a summary report) was that McQueary DID in fact break up the event with Sandusky and the 10 year-old. If that is true, it explains why McQueary has not been fired and both the grand jury, prosecutors, and the media owe McQueary a huge apology. Gettin' interestin.'

[stickymitts]

There apparently is now something that the actual grand jury testimony (remember, all we saw was a summary report) was that McQueary DID in fact break up the event with Sandusky and the 10 year-old. If that is true, it explains why McQueary has not been fired and both the grand jury, prosecutors, and the media owe McQueary a huge apology. Gettin' interestin.'

 

As would I.

[SSC]

There apparently is now something that the actual grand jury testimony (remember, all we saw was a summary report) was that McQueary DID in fact break up the event with Sandusky and the 10 year-old. If that is true, it explains why McQueary has not been fired and both the grand jury, prosecutors, and the media owe McQueary a huge apology. Gettin' interestin.'

 

If the real kid never comes forward and McQueary doesn't know who it is how do they prove it?

[CincySportsFan]

If the real kid never comes forward and McQueary doesn't know who it is how do they prove it?

 

Will be interesting to see how they have McQueary identify any kid that does come forward. I'm assuming it'll have to be from pictures that were taken 9 years ago, as there could be a lot different from a 10 year old boy to a 19 year old.

[Hearsay]

If the real kid never comes forward and McQueary doesn't know who it is how do they prove it?

 

I don't understand. Prove that McQueary broke up the sexcapade? By his own testimony, which the grand jury found "extremely credible." I guess I'm confused.

[SSC]

I don't understand. Prove that McQueary broke up the sexcapade? By his own testimony, which the grand jury found "extremely credible." I guess I'm confused.

 

No, that there was anal raping going on in the shower. The defense has already said they will have someone testify that he was in the shower when McQueary saw him and that there was no sex going on. How can the state prove McQueary is right without identifying the kid which they said they couldn't do.

[CincySportsFan]

No, that there was anal raping going on in the shower. The defense has already said they will have someone testify that he was in the shower when McQueary saw him and that there was no sex going on. How can the state prove McQueary is right without identifying the kid which they said they couldn't do.

 

Doesn't it depend on what the definition of "identifying" means? If it means that he doesn't remember what the kid looked like...then that's not good for the state. But, if it's just that he doesn't know/remember the kid's name...that's something different, isn't it? If Sandusky brings someone forward that's the supposed victim, could McQueary say that was or was not the same kid?

[Hearsay]

Doesn't it depend on what the definition of "identifying" means? If it means that he doesn't remember what the kid looked like...then that's not good for the state. But, if it's just that he doesn't know/remember the kid's name...that's something different, isn't it? If Sandusky brings someone forward that's the supposed victim, could McQueary say that was or was not the same kid?

 

 

He could, but SSC is right, there must be a named victim. The indictment must charge a particular person, not a generalized 10 year-old child.