Charlatan Victims

HOW QUICKLY THINGS CHANGE - we are reminded that there is much more to come.

This story is likely to destroy the last shred of credibility that Mike McQueary had for his Feb 2001 story. MIke already destroyed his own accounts by all the variations in his story. See a fairly complete accounting of his changing story HERE - LINK,  The only remaining thing Mike had going for his story was the idea that Victim 2 was actually abused that night even if Mike never saw it.. Now it appears that not only was he not abused but he isn't victim 2. 

Shortly after the end of the Jerry Sandusky Trial we were greeted by a plethora of articles stating Victim 2 in JerrySandusky case comes forward, plans to sue Penn State  

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/26/3274073/victim-2-in-jerry-sandusky-case.html#storylink=cpy

These articles were accompanied by what was termed "Chilling Phone Calls" that in reality appear to be anything but chilling:

Two such messages were released on tape the first sounding like Sandusky returning a phone message to the alleged victim:

"Jere. Um. I am probably not going to be able to get a hold of anybody. Um. Uh. Probably ought to just go forward. Uh. I would be very firm and express my feelings, uh, upfront. Um. But, uh, you know, there is nothing really to hide so. Um. If you want, give me a call. You can call me on my other cell phone or on this one, either one so. Alright, take care. Love you. Uh. Hope you get this message. Thanks."

 And a week later, the message is an invite to a Penn State game:

"Just calling to see, you know, whether you had any interest in going to the Penn State game this Saturday. Uh. If you could get back to me and let me know, uh, I would appreciate it and when you get this message, uh, give me a call and I hope to talk to you later. Thanks. I love you."

If you find something "chilling" about these messages as NBC evidently did you are more easily chilled than I. Seems like Jerry is telling this boy to tell the truth and inviting him to a ballgame. I guess the bar for "chilling" is pretty low for NBC. 

This website and those who had questioned Mike McQueary's testimony and the unknown victim 2 were besieged by people saying our task was done. That the appearance of this victim now sealed the deal "McQueary did see sexual abuse in the shower that night". 

NOT SO FAST 

In the past couple of days we've seen an article from Sara Ganim about this alleged Victim 2 covered well by John Ziegler in this post on Framing Paterno 

If a Bombshell Goes Off in the Forest and Sara Ganim Misreports It, Does it Still Make a Sound?

And today Gary Schultz's attorney delivered this statement to the media questioning the Charlatan Victims.   

Here is Tom Farrell'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 reported 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."

Victim 2 is represented by attorneys Joel Feller and Matt Casey, who are also representing Victims 3, 7, 10, and Matt Sandusky.  Feller and Casey have been criticized by some for attempting to take advantage of the situation by filing multi-millon dollar lawsuits on behalf of their clients.  Both attorney scoffed at the notion that they were in this for the money, however, one has to question their insistence on filing civil lawsuits when Penn State appears to be willing to settle the claims of the victims.  To date, Penn State has been very generous in its support of the victims of child abuse, thus it strains credulity that Feller and Casey have opted for civil lawsuits because of concern for the well being of the victims.

So what's next we wonder. Check back here for updates later this evening and tomorrow morning as we apply this new information to what we know from the past.

Two big questions: Will the Board of Trustees finally look into the Freeh Report?
Will they question their OPEN CHECKBOOK policy now that one Charlatan Victim seems to have been found out?