by Barry Bozeman
I believe the Attorney General and the Governor have a lot of explaining to do as it turns out. Joe and the good people of Penn State have paid the price for the misleading false statements in the Grand Jury presentment authored by the Attorney General's office. Her press release was another study in totally misleading overstatement and we haven't even gotten to that absurdity but we will. But this week I've Got RHYTHM to discuss.
The Grand Jury Presentment made many believe that Mike Mcqueary was EAR witness to a sex act. Mike only observed Sandusky and the boy for 1 or 2 seconds in direct view of Sandusky's backside that blocked any view of genitals or hands. So it had to be this "rhythmic slapping" sexual sound that made him so certain of an "extremely sexual" situation did it not?"It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but you can lose it in a minute" Will Rogers
Just how does one infer sex or rhythm from 3 claps or slaps?
The Grand Jury Presentment read:
This was a key part of a 45 second locker room visit where the Grand Jury that voted for the Attorney General's presentment claiming that Mike "saw" a boy being subjected to "anal intercourse". We have learned that is untrue. But those Rhythmic Slapping Sounds surely they were the origin of Mike's certainty. A rhythm of slapping that could only come from sexual activity makes sense. That rhythm coupled with the glances might add up to something --- but"He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity"
the rhythmic slapping sounds were just 3 claps
How does one get a RHYTHM of sexual activity from 3 claps?
Some obvious questions for the Attorney General.
- Can anyone reading this actually arrive at a reasonable understanding of how any 3 slapping sounds could become "rhythmic slapping sounds believed to be sexual activity"?
- If anyone came to me and said they suspect a crime after two 2 second glances of a back and 3 slapping sounds and expect me to call police - would I? would you?
- Have the Attorney General and Grand Jury overstated their case in the summary of Mike's testimony for some purpose that has not yet been revealed?
This summary of his testimony had to come from a head full of hallucinogenic substances because it did not come from the substance of Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony under oath. How did that testimony merit this graphic description?
If the Attorney General has no Rhythm can she dance to a conviction on misrepresentation?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."
Would not the accurate way to have described McQueary's testimony be this:
Although McQueary's testimony was the result of prosecutors designed questioning with no cross-examination the presentment was a gross exaggeration of what McQueary said under oath at the Perjury Preliminary HearingHe then heard three claps or slaps his wild imagination thought might be sexual activity. As he put sneakers in his locker he glimpsed for 1 or 2 seconds the back of an adult male through a reflection in a mirror above the sink in a room adjoining the showers. Moving for a direct view he glanced for 1 or 2 seconds the motionless full backside of Jerry Sandusky mostly blocking the view of a young boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years of age. Sandusky's arms were around the boy who's hands were on the wall. Both were standing up and the boy's feet were on the floor. He could not see genitals or the location of Sandusky's hands. He slammed his locker door and walked to a point Sandusky and the boy could both see him. They were stood a few feet apart and stared at McQueary. He left the boy standing in the shower with a naked Sandusky and went upstairs to an office to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they were gone. He said nothing to the boy or Sandusky. He did not offer help to the boy. He did not question Sandusky. The Grand Jury found this testimony inconclusive.
The PENN SCANDAL here is the Grand Jury Presentment, call it THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD where the AG will Not Pass Go and will not collect a conviction on 3 claps and 2 seconds. Let's hope Sandusky doesn't merit a Get Out Of Jail Free card from the reasonable doubt of the inappropriate Victim 2 segment of the Presentment. Given the absence of an unidentifiable victim 2 these counts rely solely on Mike McQueary and his own reasonable doubt. So far the Attorney General and her version of the case have a virtual Monopoly on public opinion after providing the Media with their misrepresentation. But that could easily vanish as more people discover the facts.
The more is revealed the worse the Attorney General, the Board of Trustees, and the media look. Simply describing accurately the testimony of Mike McQueary would have avoided so much of the media frenzy and outrage directed at Penn State University and Joe Paterno. Truth and accuracy are always best unless one is out to tarnish well earned reputations to promote their own political ambitions or distract from their own political failings?
Now we find that Governor Corbett accepted $25,000 from Second Mile while his office was investigating Sandusky and thousands more from Second Mile board members. Is the misrepresentation by the Attorney General a ploy to distract the public from the actions of the Governor?
Governor Corbett spent a year investigating with one investigator after one victim came forward with his tale of abuse. Corbett's successor added 7 investigators and took two years to bring the case to the Grand Jury Presentment. How many kids were abused in those three years? How much money went to the Governor and Attorney General in campaign funds? How long did they delay their report as a result?
Joe Paterno was told about the claps and a couple of 2 second glances and he did the right thing and passed it on up the chain to the administration. He had no reason obscure the actions of a pedophile and did not. But Joe has been vilified and fired while the Governor holds his office and pontificates about Mike McQueary's moral obligation? That is one rhythm that I cannot dance to.
additional thoughts about the response the the rather incredible McQueary testimony
Following the March 1, 2002 incident Mike told 5 people some version of what he experienced and that was not that he saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse.The media and public are now outraged at Paterno and PSU because of the Attorney General's seriously misleading characterization. But on the night in question and in the few days that followed Mike told his story to 5 educated and respected men in positions of responsibility and none of them thought his suspicions should be immediately reported to police or child protective services. Why not?
- His father Dr. John McQueary
- Family friend Dr Jonathan Dranov
- Head PSU football coach Joe Paterno
- Athletic Director Tim Curley
- Senior Vice President Gary Schultz
With the benefit of hindsight Some people here on BSD and out across the country are certain that 10 years later the police should have been called? People who do not know Mike McQueary. People who did not hear his story within minutes, hours and days of the event are certain? Have you considered the possibility that Mike's story was simply so insubstantial it did not make sense to those who heard it? Do you think there was some common interest shared by these 5 responsible educated men that had to be protected by a cover up enabling a child molester?
Or is the simplest explanation the most credible? Mike's story just didn't seem 'extremely credible' to the one man who knew him best or his friend Dr. Dranov, So why should it have seemed credible to Tim Curley or Gary Schultz?
The Governor's friend the Attorney General charges Curley and Schultz with perjury for differing accounts of a 10 minute meeting about a 45 second locker room incident 9 years in the past. Yet the Governor was taking money and prolonging an investigation just 3 years ago while doing nothing to inhibit the pedophile.
- Maybe 3 slapping sounds are NOT evidence of a sex act and to hold them out as that seems, well quite frankly, crazy?
- Perhaps two 2 second glimpses of a back as described in Mike's testimony are NOT evidence of a sex act?
- Not one of these 5 good men thought it was advisable to contact police or child protective services. Why? Because they did not find anything "extremely credible" about Mike's suspicions?
Can any of you come up with a rational explanation of how 3 claps or slaps can be rhythmic or sexual?