Friday, September 29, 2017

Boy In The Shower Says He Can't Remember 34 Times

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry Sandusky, sure has a lousy memory.

Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, that Mike McQueary was a liar, and that nothing sexual ever happened in the shower. And finally, Myers couldn't remember what he told the state attorney general's office after he flipped, and was claiming that Jerry had abused him.

Myers made all these fuzzy statements during a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where he was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial. A 48-page transcript of that hearing was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a curious reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. Myers' pathetic performance on the witness stand proves what a screwed-up case this is, featuring overreaching prosecutors and a hysterical news media.

The media blew it in part because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Myers, who, going by the transcript, clearly wasn't credible.

Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either he was dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's, or else he was lying about everything.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

So is this a chance you're willing to take, the judge asked. Sandusky told the judge his mind was made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he originally got to know the former Penn State assistant football coach through his Second Mile charity.

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.

 "I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.

On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."

As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.

On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.

Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.

"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."

"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.

"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."

"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.

"Yes," Myers said.

She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.

John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally been released.

"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about Myers' central role in the Penn State scandal.

"And it's obvious to anyone who understands the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. Myers' testimony was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had flipped for [millions] and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore," Ziegler said.

In contrast, when Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler said, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."

John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.

"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."

"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"

"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" at the Sandusky trial, Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."

Good point. And where the hell did they hide Myers during the Sandusky trial?

25 comments:

  1. Ralph,
    The reason AM wasn't called as a witness was not because what he had to say was exculpatory -- but because he had been interviewed five times and gave a different story every time.

    The interview he was questioned about by Lindsay occurred on November 9, 2011. In that interview he lied about his association with The Second Mile, stating he quit participating at the charity in the 6th grade. Police obtained the dharity's records that proved he was a participant until 9th grade - in 2002. Jerry referred to him as a Second Mile graduate. And I have a photograph of him giving a speech at a TSM event in 2001.

    Regardless, trying to prove that McGettigan was lying when he said Victim 2 is known only to God is a fool's errand. It's even more foolish to try to do it with someone who was known to be an unreliable witness.

    Unless there is a document somewhere belonging to McGettigan that shows he considered AM to be Victim 2 at the time of the trial, then it is impossible to prove McGettigan lied.

    If you would like to see why the Commonwealth didn't believe AM was Victim #2, just read this post.

    http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/11/evidence-supports-oag-decision-on.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM was V2 all right, and Raycovitz knew it. Giving AM Second Mile $$$ to purchase his automobile would qualify as embezzlement everywhere except in PA. But did Raycovitz, et al, have an inkling that JS was abusing children? I would say no. After the Sandusky's were investigated multiple times by DWP for adoptions and foster children, that would not be a logical.

      Delete
    2. Raykovitz certainly had cause to report Sandusky to a child protection agency in 2001 given that Sandusky was paid by Second Mile and told him that it was a Second Mile boy. Raykovitz should have been charged with child endangerment because he clearly was a mandatory reporter of child abuse.

      Why would Raykovitz tell Sandusky to wear a swimsuit when showering with boys unless he suspected something sexual?

      Delete
    3. If Allan Myers isn't Victim No. 2, why did they change the date of the McQueary shower incident from one year to another? Didn't the 2001 date come from Jerry?

      You can't have it both ways. The prosecutors here have zero credibility.

      Delete
    4. At the end of the day I simply want the truth. Everyone should want the truth, all of it. This cannot go on in perpetuity like the mystery surrounding JFK. This needs closure. Joe Paterno needs justice as well.

      Delete
    5. The 2001 date was confirmed from the Penn State emails, which were turned over to the OAG about April 2011 according to the PSU computer forensics expert the prosecution called to testify.

      Freeh still takes credit for discovering the 2001 emails but he's never been questioned under oath about it. If Freeh did discover them, that would mean that the OAG investigators were so incompetent that they missed the 2001 emails despite having copies of all the emails nearly a year earlier.

      Mike McQueary's uncertainty over the date is just another indication of how poor his memory was. The week of the 2001 shower incident was very memorable. It included PSU National Signing Day and the announcement that the PSU wide receivers coach was leaving to coach for the Steelers. That was the job McQ wanted and got in 2004.

      McQ testified that the first thing Paterno told him over the phone when McQ called him the day after the shower incident was that he had no job for McQ. That was because Paterno had a vacant wide receiver coaching position. Too bad the prosecution and defense were not on the ball to question McQ about why Paterno told him he had no job for McQ. They might have locked down the correct date much earlier.

      Delete
    6. Well...MM and Sosanno really put a nice hoax together about the Rudy movie and buying TV guides. Perjured themselves to boot!

      Delete
    7. Tim is correct. The OAG knew the date was wrong in April 2011.

      They went with the 2002 date in order to be able to file charges within the statutes of limitations.

      Delete
    8. Ray - The statute of limitations (SOL) doesn't seem to mean much to prosecutors when judges seem to bend over backwards to help prosecutors on the SOL. For over 5 years, the Curley-Schultz-Spanier judge just refused to rule on the motion to dismiss the failure to report charge because it was filed beyond the SOL. It was eventually dismissed by the new judge, Boccabella.

      Now we have Judge Boccabella's novel ruling in the Spanier appeal that the SOL for misdemeanor child endangerment charges for the 2001 shower incident doesn't expire until 2039!

      If Boccabella's rulings hold up in higher courts, that could mean child endangerment charges still could be brought against Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz, Mike McQueary and others. Maybe a Centre County DA will eventually pursue such charges.

      Delete
  2. Which media outlet requested this information, sure it can't be the Inky as they have no interest in the truth. People want the facts,we can handle the facts. When the media prints lies they lose credibility.

    Ralph, this is the kind of reporting we crave and deserve, thank you.

    Why the Inky can't bring themselves to believe that prosecutors lie to get an indictment is beyond reason. Prosecutors lie to grand juries and again at trial but most of all they lie to the media.

    We know how gullible the public can be but to think that "investigative" reporters keep buying what the prosecution is selling time after time is confounding.

    Lets see if this makes sense to the Inky reporters, 100 % of what the prosecutions says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, correct ? Maybe thier reporters believe this fallacy but the public does not.

    It seems the Inky is involved in a re-entry program for people coming out of prison, which is commendable but what we need is for the paper to do is stop promoting the prosecution's side and sending innocents to prison in the first place.

    Traffic Court was just one such case where the prosecution lied to the grand jury but the Inky is sticking to their story,to bad their version of what happened in the courtroom just happened to be what the prosecution was spewing, not what actually took place. Had the day to day proceeding been accurately reported the public and the rest of the Inky staff might feel differently about the prosecution's accounts .

    No one in American talks anymore, we live in a "you're fired" mentality world, disgracing and shaming is the name of the game. It's easier to convince the public of corruption or that a scheme took place,than the truth.

    All public figures are corrupt if we are to believe the Inky,the public has been misled by continually rehashing untruths.Prosecutors use bullying tactics to get what they want and using the Inky to convey their unfounded "facts" is just one of their strongarm methods.

    Unless the Innocence Projects hands the Inky a story or its covered elsewhere, is the only time they actually carry a story about an innocent that has finally tasted freedom and justice after a long and grueling road fighting the "Justice" Department.

    Holding the "Justice" Department accountable is more of what is needed from the media, listening, just listening to defendants and hearing their account is crucial. Not the " you're guilty" articles because the prosecution says so, prosecutors have agendas and motives which need to be explored, not sure if the Inky is up to the task.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't the Inquirer, but the reporter doesn't want his cover blown.

      Delete
    2. I didn't think so, their job is finished, except of course to keep the lies in front of the public, what would we do without their having "saved us" from all the imaginary corruption. They are very useful to the prosecution.


      Delete
  3. They had their minds made up and proceeded on that assumption. witch hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does the reporter for the "major mainstream media news outlet" plan to publish an article on this transcript?

    Is the transcript available online?

    Did Allen Myers testify at this Sandusky appeal hearing that he was abused in the shower on Feb. 9, 2001 or did he just repeat his earlier denials?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM is just parroting the script prepared by Shubin and the other civil attorneys (aka FRAUDS). Someone has to name names and point fingers. XYZ are damn liars and frauds. Too many cowards not willing to do this. Someone has to start raising some hell!

      Delete
    2. Gregory,
      AM seems to parrot whomever has his ear that day.

      Delete
    3. Tim,
      He stated he was sexually abused but didn't specify the date.

      Delete
  5. Ralph I debunked all of Ray's rediculous theories about Myers here. http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/178-v2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many things you got wrong in that piece you wrote, however the biggest thing you got wrong is this:

      "Nobody in the judicial system has ever legally disputed or refuted his claim as Victim 2."

      The prosecution did. So did Gary Schultz's defense attorney, Tom Farrell. They did so for most of the reasons I wrote about, especially that his versions of events were wildly inconsistent and he could not correctly draw the locker room.

      Schultz's legal team had EVERY reason to want AM to be V2 because it would have helped Gary's case -- but they called him a "charlatan."

      http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/sandusky/gary-schultzs-attorney-speaks-out-against-victim-2


      Schultz's statement:

      "Public efforts by charlatan "victims" and their attorneys to interfere with Gary Schultz' right to a fair trial and to profit from the suffering of the real victims who bravely testified at Jerry Sandusky's trial compel me to issue this statement. The individual who claims to be the "victim number two" linked to Mike McQueary was interviewed on November 9, 2011, by an investigator, in the presence of the individual's mother. The individual claimed to be the boy in the shower with Jerry Sandusky when Mike McQueary happened upon them, but fiercely denied that Mr. Sandusky sexually abused him that night, or at any other time. The person claiming to be victim 2 also, in 2010, invited Mr. Sandusky to his wedding and attended the funeral of Mr. Sandusky's mother. Further, in May 2011, after the Patriot News published reports about the grand jury investigation, that individual wrote the paper in defense of Mr. Sandusky.

      After Mr. Sandusky's criminal attorney made public reference to that individual's interview, his lawyer on a pending DUI charge, Andrew Shubin, who happened to be advertising on his website for potential clients to sue Penn State, contacted all the attorneys involved in the criminal cases and barred them from further access to his client - except for the prosecutors. Mr. Shubin then asked the Attorney General's agents and Postal Inspectors to interview his client, which they did - four times. Discovery provided to us shows that the individual's story changed from interview to interview and even conflicted with the version of events his own attorneys described. When requested to diagram the Lasch building locker room and shower, the individual created a drawing that did not match reality. After a fourth interview in April 2012 at which Mr. Shubin attempted to provide the agents with yet another version of events that Mr. Shubin himself handwrote, the agents, to their credit, refused to have anything more to do with Mr. Shubin or his client.

      A court order prohibits the attorneys in the Sandusky case and in our case from revealing the identity of this individual. However, all the attorneys - defense lawyers and prosecutors - are aware of this individual's identity and have evaluated his credibility, or lack thereof, appropriately, as evidenced by the fact that all parties to the Sandusky trial declined to call him as a witness."


      Bottom line, NOTHING that AM has ever said provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that he was in the locker room with Jerry on February 9, 2001. NOTHING.


      Delete
    2. I thought the alleged victim 2 told police that on Feb, 2001 in the shower with Sandusky he heard a sound like a locker door slam.

      He made that statement before Mike McQueary "remembered" it so how would he have known about the locker door slam?

      I'm not sure even a credible victim 2 testifying he was never abused by Sandusky would have helped CSS. The case against them was Mike McQueary and the emails. Even if Mike McQueary was 100% wrong, and there was no sexual abuse in the shower, he alleged he reported sexual abuse. The prosecution's case was that CSS failed to contact the authorities when they got McQueary's complaint, and other boys were later abused. Spanier was technically convicted for endangering other boys, not victim 2.

      Delete
  6. What AG Shapiro hopes to see the judge turn down Sandusky's bid for a new trial to maintain the cover-up. Keeping Sandusky in jail is the only place he will be safe as his son is in prison, too. They will simply ignore the boy in the shower story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shapiro should be in an orange jumpsuit for suborning perjury from V5. Too much solid evidence that V5's story is a hoax constructed by Klein.

      Delete
  7. Ask Mike Mc about the Beaver Stadium locker room incident where I was told by him and his buddy I couldn't be there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To me it appears the 1998 victim, investigated and closed is key. If they were wrong then they would need to demonstrate why. If they were correct then , the case turns dramatically

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't well investigated in 1998 plus CYS, DPW and the DA kept no records of their investigation so we don't even know everything that they did or thought at the time.

      Sandusky admitted to bear hugging the boy in 1998 so, as the judge explained to the jury, all they needed was sexual intent to prove child abuse. The jury apparently got that intent from the other victims testifying that Sandusky performed sexual acts with them. I guess it was sort of like dominoes falling. Once the jury decided he was guilty of abusing one boy, they just decided he must have abused the rest despite the flimsy evidence in some cases.

      The weakest cases were the two that lacked an identified victim, especially the one with only a hearsay witness. If I was on the jury, I certainly would not have convicted for those two cases because there was lots of reasonable doubt particularly why the two victims never came forward to help convict Sandusky or to collect their millions. Those two shower incidents with an unidentified victim occurred on the Penn State campus so would each have been worth $3 million or more in settlement money.

      Delete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.