A Sandusky impostor was on campus in 1998. He did take part in activities in the shower room that were filmed. Calhoun the janitor and (Don Robbins) that's me, saw the impostor in the shower room in 1998. I went into the shower room just before the janitor and the security guard. The incident was never mentioned.
The impostor is the man that Calhuon thought was Sandusky. He saw the impostor again in 2000 at the Lasch building. Petrosky saw the same man as Calhoun in 2000, also.
There was an impostor.
There was a video tape made.
There is a high probability that people saw the impostor and believed it was Sandusky. The question is whether or not the prosecutors heard testimony from people who had mistaken the impostor for Sandusky? Probably, they did.
Question of the day-
Here it is: Did McQueary inform the Penn State officials in 2001 about seeing Sandusky in a shower room with a child at 9:30 PM in the Lasch building?
The answer is no. He didn't.
McQueary did inform officials in 2002 about an incident where he said he saw Sandusky in the shower room at the Lasch building at 9:30 PM and he didn't know if it involved inappropriate behavior or not.
All of the officials and Paterno agreed that's what McQueary reported. And it was in 2002, not 2001.
*The information that convinced the prosecutors to file charges and say that the 2002 incident actually happened in 2001 has never been revealed.
It wasn't on the testimony of McQueary that the prosecution accused the officials of a cover up. It wasn't on the testimony of McQueary that the state prosecutors filed charges against Sandusky.It was on the strength of the 2001 information. So where did the prosecutors get the information that made them so sure that Sandusky was guilty?
Was it a video tape that the prosecutors couldn't use as evidence but looked like Sandusky molesting a child?
Was it information from Paterno's logbook that mentioned a shower room incident in 2001? And a paper in Schultz's office that mentioned the same 2001 incident that was mentioned in Patern's logbook?
I think it was.
If so, where did Kelly find out about the paper that was in Schultz's office?
Was there a break in?
Was a mistake made about the 2001 incident?
Did they see the logbook entry and think it was actually about Sandusky when it wasn't.
Did they lie about it? Was the information falsified? And then used to place guilt on Sandusky and then later accuse the officials of not reporting suspicion of child abuse?
I believe that is what actually happened.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/pretrial-hearing-set-for-spanier-curley-and-schultz,1416476/
No comments:
Post a Comment