BennyProfane
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
Let's look at this logically. They are looking at a witness that tells us about another witness, McQueary. It means that they think McQueary might have seen what he said he saw. They are not looking at the other victims.
1. It's the first step in a process, a starting point.
2. They don't believe any of the uncorroborated victims, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10.
3. They are looking at the cases where there is no victim, 2 and 8.
If it's 2 or 3, Victims 1 and 6 are still in play, maybe Victim 4.
4. If they convict on 2, it reflects on Paterno.
Not sure if these are different (opposing) theories, but I don't see how the jury request leads to your second point. They may have already moved past accepting Victim 9 at his word -- or any of the he said/he said instances -- and are now at the more convoluted aspect of deliberation. As though they're saving the toughest for last.