by Barry Bozeman
 |
| Kelly makes it about PSU |
If the Grand Jury Presentment had simply accurately described Mike McQueary's testimony as "strong suspicion of sexual activity based on a brief glance in the shower and some slapping sounds" do you think Joe and PSU would have suffered this vilification? That is the first question you need to answer.
Based on a misleading Grand Jury Presentment and Perjury Hearing Testimony under oath by Mike McQueary; we can derive the simplest explanation for what transpired in Mike's meetings with Joe and then with Tim and Gary.
How accurate, graphic, and believable was McQueary when speaking to Joe Paterno? What did he and Joe say to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz? If MIke handled his talks with them like the light cross-examination at the Perjury Hearing I believe their reaction would have been: No reason to call police when the only suspicion is based on a 3 second glance of Jerry's back and 3 slapping sounds that did not confirm any criminal act. Reporting suspicion is not required or even advisable. This will be a leap for some of you but a long review of the tweets make this conclusion compelling.
Penn State people and Joe Paterno are unfairly cast in this travesty. Perhaps you will understand the magnitude of the travesty after the jump.
This Penn State travesty is all about 6 seconds (or less) broken into two 3 Second (or less) glances of the back of Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a young boy 9 years ago, one 10 minute early Saturday meeting between Mike and Joe, and one 10 days later for 10 or 12 minutes with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. This is the full extent of the distorted molehill that brought down Joe Paterno and tarnished PSU because of the Grand Jury's misleading presentment and the media's complicity for reporting distortion as unassailable fact.
SIX SECONDS (or less) - and 3 (or less) of those
through a mirrored view of upper bodies and 3 (or less) a direct view of the back of Jerry Sandusky. Due to some slapping sounds that preconditioned him to see a sex act Mike McQueary is 'certain of something extremely sexual'. So he ends a 45 second locker room visit leaving a naked boy with his presumed attacker?
Saturday morning MIke spends a mere 10 minutes with Joe Paterno. Mike does not use "saw" or "anal intercourse" that show up in the misleading presentment but expresses his "discomfort" over what he thought might have been "something of a sexual nature".Mike saw "no insertion" he "did not look down there" , he saw "no pain" or distress on the boy's face, he saw them "not bent over" but "standing up" all in two short "1 or 2 second glances" and he left the naked youngster in the shower with the naked Jerry Sandusky --See (appendix C) -Tweets of Testimony Under Oath.
This weekend before Spring Break Joe calls Tim Curley saying an upset Mike saw "inappropriate horseplay or something of a sexual nature". 8 days later there is a "10 to12 minute meeting" between Mike, Tim and Gary Schultz. Only the three of them know what was said.
Based on conflicting testimony the state brings perjury charges against Curley and Schultz because recollections from a meeting 9 years previous about a 45 second locker room visit differ. A meeting without witnesses, notes, recordings or any indication of lying on purpose makes a very weak perjury case.
That's IT - that is all there is.No other events in the Sandusky Case have anything to do with Paterno, Spanier, Curley or Schultz.
I suspect Mike McQueary confronted with evidence of multiple victims in 2010 determined to help prosecution any way they wanted because he harbored the guilt of leaving a naked boy with an alleged pedophile who stands accused of abusing multiple victims. MIke's a good guy guilt tripped, misquoted, and used by prosecutors to get PSU in the case. His reconstructed memory of long ago events is now altered by recent revelations.
The prosecution has not identified the boy from the night of March 1, 2002 to our knowledge. The defense for Sandusky says the boy in question has indicated that "he was not a victim" *(appendix B)
If I heard Mike describe his experience as seconds viewing Jerry's back in what he was not certain was sexual I would not involve police. What would I tell them? A graduate assistant glimpsed naked Jerry's back for one or two seconds and thought it might be "extremely sexual"? No I would call Sandusky for an explanation and the name and number of the boy just as Tim Curley did.Can you honestly say that you would involve police if you had not read the misleading Presentment and knew Sandusky only as founder of a great charity and foster father of six, based on Mike's suspicions of slapping sounds and a 3 second glance? That's the second question you need to answer.
Is this some episode of the TWILIGHT ZONE come to life in Happy Valley? A mountain has been made from the distorted molehill of the Victim 2 charges.
Consider this one my UP YOURS to a misleading Attorney General, a back stabbing Board of
- Grand Jury Presentment describes the 3 second glance molehill as "anal intercourse" seen by McQueary - A LIE - Mike did not testify to seeing anal intercourse.
- The Attorney General's office writes a misleading victim 2 section and deliberately choses to hide that distorted molehill in a mountain of other evidence. (the 40 count 23 page presentment)
- Then the prosecution leaks or presents this mountain with the distorted molehill to the MEDIA without the slightest description of what it truly represented offering Mike as the "EXTREMELY CREDIBLE" witness. If Mike is "extremely credible" why was he misquoted? The third question you need to answer.
- The MEDIA then creates a range of Himalayas out of the few seconds described as the "saw".. "anal intercourse" molehill. Failing to question the nature of the presentment and producing dozens of stories as unassailable FACT they report "GA saw anal intercourse Paterno and PSU ignored and covered up" creating the non-existent PENN STATE SEX SCANDAL. see the APPENDIX A below
*Only if Victim 2 comes forward and substantiates Mike McQueary's suspicions is there a case for these counts of the indictment. Even that does not correct the weakness of Mike's statements under oath or the misconduct of the Attorney General's office in publishing such a damaging distortion in their Presentment.
I pray the victims testimony will put Jerry Sandusky where he belongs while fearing the prosecutions distortions might give the defense a 'reasonable doubt' issue that could damage their case. I expect to hear the victim 2 and perjury charges have been dismissed prior to trial due to lack of evidence.
APPENDIXES
- A Exact text of the Grand Jury Presentment - A distortion of Mike McQueary's testimony as clearly stated under oath at the Preliminary Hearing on the Perjury charges. Mike did not see anal intercourse and was not "100% sure" of anything. That is already reasonable doubt by the "most credible witness".
- B The defense for Sandusky says the boy in question is willing to testify that "he was not a victim"
- C Tweets of Testimony from Friday Dec. 16, 2011 Perjury Hearing and Perjury Hearing Transcript just added
- A He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the Graduate Assistant put the sneakers in his locker he saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught." "He testified in the Grand Jury in December of 2010. The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistants testimony to be extremely credible."
- B - Attorney Joe Amendola said a man who says he is Victim Two came to his office and contradicted the statements made by Mike McQueary about what he allegedly witnessed in a shower in 2002. "He sat here with his mother and brother and said he was not a victim."
- C McQuery first saw shower scene in a mirror
- McQueary: only looked at Jerry for a second or two total.
- McQueary says "I did not see insertion or hear screaming or yelling"
- McQueary said I can’t say 100 percent sure that intercourse was happening
- McQueary: two glances were 1 or 2 seconds long. multiple showers were on
- McQuery "based on 3 slapping sounds, I contrived a visual of what was happening, Then I glanced "That first look through the mirror, I didn't know what to think."
- How long in locker room? McQuery: "No longer than a minute, I'd say 45seconds."
- "I cannot say I saw Sandusky's hands on the boy." McQueary "I wouldn't use the word intercourse. I would say extreme sexual act. I think was intercourse." But did not see "insertion" Was the boy bent over or standing up? Standing up.
- McQueary can't remember if Sandusky had an erection. "I didn't look down there."
- McQ says he did not see pain on the boys face"
- McQueary says "yes he left the boy naked in the shower with Sandusky"
- C 1) Mike's actual testimony under oath shows how odd his assumptions and beliefs are in the context of the situation
- 3 Slapping sounds - how can 3 slaps be rhythmic or sexual?
- Two 1 or 2 Second glances
- View of Sandusky's backside & a bit of the boy
- Could not see hands or genitals
- 6'2 Sandusky behind 4'2 boy - head up to pectoral muscle
-
- Very little movement
- No Fondling or genital touching - body blocking view
- No insertion - no view no protest - only "belief"
- Not sure
- Strange testimony
- 3 slapping sounds made Mike visualize sex
- So Mike is sure what he saw in 1or 2 seconds
- but not 100% sure
- could not see insertion or penetration - just a back
- could not hear protest or anything - little motion
- but Mike is sure because it was clear intercourse was going on
- between a 6'2 220lb plus man and a 4'2 70lb boy standing upright with feet on the floor
- and there was NO PAIN?
and a Very LARGE man over 6 feet weighing 220lbs or more standing up behind
a 10 year old boy in a shower means NO lubricant - water is not a lubricant
The boy's head at tne man's pectorals means the man's genitals would be at the lower back of the boy
Standing upright means the butt cheeks are not spread out, there is no way the boy is relaxed
and the idea that anal intercourse is in progress is just absurd.
Here is a man behind a child who's head is at the pectoral muscles
note the man's pelvic region is mid back of the child.
McQueary did not see an erection because he says "I did not look down there" but he's 6 to 9 feet away from Sandusky when both he and the boy stood facing him. It's impossible to look at a man from 6 to 9 feet away and not see the entire body.
It is very difficult to fathom why McQueary's account makes NO sense other than to note his account is now almost 10 years old and he is being prepped and led by prosecutors.
This comprises my final analysis of the situation that led to the vilification of Joe and PSU. It was unjust and manufactured by distortion and a lie. All along I've lobbied for patience and restraint - to stop the rush to judgment. This fanpost is my best argument in defense of everyone at Penn State - a minority opinion I believe is far more studied and plausible than 99% of the media's output. No matter how all this turns out, I believe in the basic goodness of the people at Penn State who have been harmed by the way this was handled from the Attorney General to the BOT and the media. Agree or not - it's your choice - but for me this is about simple truth and fairness and the AG, BOT, and Media denied Joe and PSU simple fairness. The AG could have simply told the truth in the presentment - that would have been fair The media could have done their jobs and questioned the AG - that would be fair and the BOT could have backed their coach and school - that would have been fair and right.
No comments:
Post a Comment