McQueary is not telling the truth. After that interview, the man retained civil attorney Andrew Shubin, who had represented him in his DUI case. Amendola testified this summer that he was surprised when Shubin told him the man was now claiming Sandusky abused him.
Shubin previously testified that he sent multiple letters to prosecutors prior to the trial stating that his client would speak with them, but that the state attorneys showed no interest. But, McGettigan and former Deputy Attorney General Fina testified , he was not made available as a witness until after McQueary testified at a preliminary hearing for the Penn State administrators charged with perjury and failure to report child abuse.
McGettigan and Fina noted that once he was interviewed, his account reflected some of the specific details McQueary had testified to, including getting the month and year of the shower incident wrong. McQueary had been unsure what the year was and it had been referred to in court occurring in March Investigators soon learned it was February The man also was unable to accurately draw a diagram of the locker room where the incident happened, and McGettigan said that at the time of the incident the man would have been three or four years older than the approximately year-old boy McQueary described.
On re-direct Friday Lindsay asked the accuser if he hired Shubin to get him money in a settlement with Penn State. He said no. Outside the courthouse after the hearing, Lindsay was asked if he believed the man changed his story for money. He tried to confront Storm, who walked away from him. Cleland gave the defense and prosecution attorneys until next week to submit legal briefs on the post-trial issues raised by the defense.
The hearing Friday occurred just a day prior to the fifth anniversary of the charges being filed against Sandusky and two days prior to his arrest. Saturday, Nov. Another part of that plan called for revealing the name of the victim from the infamous Penn State shower episode. Ziegler eventually reconsidered, but then it was posted on his site anyway, where it remained for several hours. In the text, the victim's first name appeared five times, his last name once, and the name also showed up for a while in the URL link to a separate document.
Ziegler admitted he made a "stupid mistake," but he also claimed that his websites "were immediately hit with a massive and coordinated cyber attack" that initially prevented him from making post-publication edits. This is the same John Ziegler who, back in January, was asked in front of an audience of Penn State Truthers if they were showing enough concern for the victims. His answer:. Now keep in mind that Ziegler had every intention of outing the man known as Victim 2.
He made a subtle reference to it in his stupid challenge to the media published last week. This understandably provoked victim rights organizations to object to the interview even happening. This also caused the narrative to be immediately set in a very negative direction. In a previous conference call with Matt Lauer I had strongly implied I was going to do this and there was no objection raised.
So I was stunned when the producer seemed freaked out by this concept. Unfortunately, this producer became so worried about the conversation that she set off alarm bells at the Today Show and things started to unravel in an immediate downward spiral. My gut told me that I should cancel the interview entirely, but out of misplaced loyalty to others involved I decided to go ahead with it. When I arrived in New York, the parameters of what I was allowed to say were still becoming even more restrictive.
Even as I was getting of the car to go into the studio I was being given new, completely absurd, restrictions from the NBC corporate suits with regard to what I could say about Victim 2. I came within a whisker of getting back into the car. The interview itself was incredibly frustrating on several levels, but I was extremely proud of how I handled it.
I humbly submit that no one could have handled it better under the circumstances. Even the NBC corporate lawyer seemed shocked that, when he looked at the tape, I had somehow pulled it off. I should mention that Matt Lauer actually handled this situation extremely well, backing me up as much as I possibly could have imagined. While I was not happy with the content of the appearance it was not focused on the things I actually wanted to talk about , I did think that I was well positioned to reveal all about Victim 2 that night at www.
However, in the limo on the way to the studio, Jim Clemente suddenly called me to ask that I reconsider my intent to name Victim 2 because he had heard the man was upset by this prospect. This put me in an extremely difficult position. First, Jim, despite all the enormous time we had spent together on the phone over the past month, had been unable, in spite of what he says was his best effort, to keep Scott Paterno quiet during all of this Scott had emailed me to say, in what would turn out to be a lie, that as long as Jim was on board with what I was doing that he would refrain from comment.
Now, he was essentially asking me for a favor to not do something that he previously said would be appropriate. Then, after my slugfest with Piers Morgan, I thought about an alternative plan that might work for everyone.
I told Jim that I would hold off on identifying Victim 2 if the man simply called me, totally off the record, and explained why he felt he was in need of special consideration. Jim thought this was a decent plan and said he would look into it.
0コメント