On December 16th AD Curley and VP Schultz head to court for their first hearing on the perjury charges that have led to the entire conspiracy and cover up meme being pushed by the media narrative. This may be the strangest conspiracy and cover up in history since only four men would be required to agree on and stick to their story and there is no credible reason in view for them to have broken any conspiracy that might have existed.Schultz' attorney, Thomas J. Farrell, has already accused prosecutors of "perjury trap," which is when a prosecutor brings a witness before a grand jury seeking to catch the witness in perjury, rather than seeking evidence against the accused.
Will December 6 be the beginning of the undoing of the prosecution's allegations that led to the media feeding frenzy damaging Penn State and the Board of Trustee's cowardly firing of Joe Paterno? I think that is quite likely.
It just makes no sense. Any possible upside in a conspiracy or cover up for Penn State University as represented by Joe Paterno, Tim Curley or VP Schultz would extend to even greater benefit to the young coach who depended on the good graces of his boss, Head Coach Joe Paterno. So Mike McQueary is going to describe himself as the 28 year old football player who witnessed a brutal anal rape and then ran away? How is that "highly credible"?
What exactly is the downside for Penn State University and Joe Paterno if a former coach who has become the head of a charity and is known by an entire community as a fine upstanding citizen is caught and exposed by a graduate assistant and his head coach? If a man who gave his life in the pursuit of excellence and fairness molding the lives of young men and an institution that is pride of Pennsylvania helps to end the horror of a sexual predator would that be considered a bad thing? No rational thinking person could hold Joe Paterno or Penn State accountable for the sickness of an individual who fooled an entire community and many well known sports figures. Yet we are expected to believe that four good men in responsible positions of trust and power would prefer that a pedophile go free in order to avoid any connection with this monster and themselves or the university? How does that make any sense?
Could be the entire conspiracy and cover up narrative will collapse on top of the media that invented it starting on December 16th.
In order to believe the prosecutions version of events we are required to believe the following:
In other words we have to believe that Curley and Schultz conspired with Paterno to cover up the facts told to them by McQueary and were so utterly inept they fell into this Perjury Trap when they had to have known that McQueary would also be testifying and answering investigators questions. That would make these University administrators some of the dumbest criminals on the planet. They had to know that Sandusky was under criminal investigation and that the truth would then come out so there was no protecting PSU or themselves from any association with Sandusky.
- 1) Mike McQueary was 100% certain he saw anal rape, in two 1 or 2 second glances in a state of shocked disbelief.
- 2) He was so certain that he told Joe Paterno in no uncertain terms that he witnessed anal intercourse between Sandusky and an innocent 10 year old and instead of rushing to the boy's aide he turned tail and ran to call his daddy.
- 3) He then went to Curley and Schultz and told them the same horror story in no uncertain terms.
- 4) We then have to believe that Joe Paterno lied to investigators during questioning about what McQueary told him. and
- 5) We have to believe that Curley and Schultz lied about what they were told because they wanted to enable a pedophile to continue abusing young boys. and
- 6) Victim 2 who in now at least 18 has refused to come forward to police and the police are too inept to locate him although the defense attorney told Bob Costas on national TV that he would present "victim 2" and that victim 2 would claim that nothing sexual happened on March 1, 2002.
The AD and VP had no legal obligation to report to any police outside of the Penn State police under the control of Schultz. It is clearly their jurisdiction. If the great Coach Paterno was so all powerful and the AD along with the VP who oversaw the campus police budget could not enlist a couple of Campus Police in their cover up to claim that they were asked to investigate but came up empty - we have to question the entire conspiracy and cover up meme that has gotten Paterno and the President of the University fired and the AD and VP charged with perjury. So is this a case of powerful PSU administrators conspiring to cover up the rape of a young boy? Men so powerful they could not purchase the cooperation of a couple of campus police?
Mike McQueary was in their employment and they could have spoken with him any time about his questioning to coordinate their stories if they were involved in a conspiracy to cover up. After 9 years what would be the benefit of breaking some conspiracy when Mike was in his dream position as coach for PSU?
The prosecution has presented this Grand Jury Report bought as unassailable fact by most of the media and public outside of Pennsylvania when it is clearly a Summary of Allegations designed to justify indictment of Sandusky in the most damaging language possible to garner public opinion on their side.
If there was a victim of anal rape on that night he would be at least 19 years old. The defense attorney told a national TV audience the night of the Bob Costas interview that the defense knows his identity and that he will testify that nothing but horseplay occurred that night. We do not have to believe the defense in order to know something is very unclear and unlimited about the victim 2 section of the Grand Jury Report. Without a victim 2 convicting Sandusky on those counts is unlikely. The only thing the Victim 2 section did was to put Penn State and Joe Paterno in the media spotlight and on the hot seat - a clear boon to the prosecutors publicity.
So what is more likely?
I know what a Grand Jury report is and can speculate on the common nature of prosecutors to accentuate the worst case to go after the headlines and make themselves somewhat famous for taking down prominent people. I tend to believe number ONE until there is sufficient evidence to prove that Curley and Schultz are the two worst conspirator cover up artists to ever reach high places in a university administration. Or that a man like Joe Paterno who has a lifetime of unassailable behavior to support him would ever do anything to allow a child rapist to go free.
- 1) The Grand Jury report's summary of allegations used the worst case "MAYBE" of Mike McQuery's witness experience or "anal rape" and failed to report the factors that led to any uncertainty or alternate explanation?
- 2) The Grand Jury report is totally accurate and Paterno, Curley and Schultz are LIARS conspiring to cover up McQueary's certain testimony that he saw anal rape and ran away. MM then told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that he was certain, and they just buried this horror in hopes it would just go away. In other words three well respected men and Mike McQueary were so afraid of a former coach that they covered up anal rape and refused to tell police.
Remember Mike knows nothing about the 1998 allegations against his former coach and the charity founder. And we know that Mike McQueary continued to support the Second Mile Charity even with Jerry Sandusky in attendance at the events as early as that same month in 2002.With regard to perjury, Pennsylvania law provides, "a person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent … when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true."Schultz's attorney Thomas J. Farrell accused the Attorney General of setting a ‘perjury trap.’ "You bring someone into a grand jury to investigate something that can’t be prosecuted, something that isn’t a crime, and then you take that persons’ inconsistencies or inaccuracies, or failure to remember what happened nine years ago," said Farrell. "Then you manufacture a charge out of it. That’s what the Attorney General has done to these men."
A perjury trap materializes when a prosecutor calls a witness before the grand jury with the intention of securing a perjury indictment, rather than indicting the witness for a previously committed crime.
McQueary played in and Sandusky coached in the annual Easter Bowl benefiting Easter Seals Central Pennsylvania on March 28, 2002, according to a review of news archives from the time period. McQueary, a former Penn State quarterback, also played in a June 21, 2002, celebrity golf tournament benefitting Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile. .McQueary played in Second Mile golf tournament again in 2003 and was again on the field for the Easter Seals flag football game, with Sandusky coaching, in April 2004.
Does this sound like the actions of someone who was certain he saw Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy? Or is it more likely that he was satisfied with some explanation by the AD, the VP or Sandusky or someone investigating the incident? This makes it appear as if Mike McQueary is some insensitive monster who condones sexual assault of a young boy. Is that logical? Does it fit with what everyone seems to say about the "straight arrow good guy" who was loved and respected by his players as a life coach as well as a WR coach?
Is the national media so devoid of imagination and intelligence that they cannot conceive of any explanation besides "McQueary saw a boy being sexually assaulted and ran to call his daddy" Or "Joe Paterno turned his back on innocent victims in order to cover up this incident to preserve PSU's reputation". How twisted do these media types have to be to accept those as the logical conclusions? Is it what they would have done under the same circumstances? Do they set themselves up as better people than Mike or Joe?
Or is it more likely that good people like Mike and Joe were deeply troubled by something they did not completely understand and that Mike was uncertain because a highly esteemed member of the community appeared to be doing something it was impossible for Mike to accept? Use your Occam's Razor and decide for yourself what is the most likely answer.
If your mind tells you that cowardice and coverup are more likely than uncertainty and confusion I have to wonder about the way you see people like Joe Paterno who is not some politician but an established paragon of virtue and good in a community that has known him for a lifetime. If Joe and Mike are not good people then who is? Do you really expect the worst of everyone? I realize in the USA in 2011 where we see constant 24/7 vilification of our leaders it may be a difficult question. But this should not be us. We should be better than that.
Maybe I cannot let go of this story because it seems to amplify our current national disease of believing the worst about our leaders in this atmosphere of constant unreasonable and scurrilous attacks that seem to make it possible that there are no good people who do the right thing. If Joe Paterno is not a good person then who is? If Mike McQueary is not the straight arrow good guy he seems to be then who is?
Again I offer this slant on this story as an outsider who has no ties to Penn State and no particular love for Joe Paterno. I had never heard of Mike McQueary prior to this story and I've even had some personal experience with this type of thing. I did not get into this thinking that Paterno and McQueary were unjustly treated. It just became more obvious to me the deeper I got into this situation.
Thank you for bearing with me and for your recommendations and comments. A Tennessee Fan and Alumni.
REVISION based on new quotes and statements concerning VICTIM 2
VICTIM 2 ALLEGED TO DENY ANY SEXUAL ABUSE The UPDATE
Attorney Joe Amendola also said that, several weeks ago, 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," Amendola said.
That man is the client of State College attorney Andrew Shubin, who successfully fought to keep the man's name from being released by Amendola.
Amendola says both Victim Two and Sandusky deny ever seeing McQueary in the Penn State locker room that night in March 2002. McQueary testified before the grand jury he had seen Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, aged 10-11, in a locker room shower that night.
Instead, Sandusky says he was contacted a few days later by athletic director Tim Curley -- now charged with perjury and failure to report a crime -- and told that someone witnessed him "engaged in horseplay and it made the other person feel uncomfortable,"
Sandusky gave Curley the boy's name and phone number, and then called the boy himself, Amendola said.
"The reason the young man said he remembered what happened ... Sandusky contacted him and said you may get a call from someone from Penn State who is going to ask you about what’s going on in the shower, and if you do, it’s OK to tell them what was going on," Amendola said.
Victim Two, Amendola said, has not talked with prosecutors since he came forward to defend Sandusky, and he is not expected to testify at the preliminary hearing Dec. 13, Amendola said.
He does maintain a relationship with Sandusky, the lawyer said. In fact, he said, Victims Two and Six had dinner last summer with Sandusky and his wife, Dottie.
Victim Four visited Jerry and Dottie a few years ago with his fiancee and baby, and
discussed having the Sanduskys be a part of their new family, Amendola said.
"In regard to number 7, we also think there is a relationship there that still exists, too," he said.
If this story is true then the entire Victim 2 part of the Grand Jury report that brought down Joe Paterno and the PSU President and the perjury charges against the AD and VP Schultz have been a travesty. This revelation clearly brings the Grand Jury Report on Victim 2 into serious question - particularly the National Press and the politician's interpretation of that section of the report. McQueary is stated to have said he was seen by both Sandusky and the alleged victim. Now the alleged victim say he was not a victim and that he and Sandusky never saw McQueary?
If as Sandusky and his attorney are telling the truth about the continuing relationships with victims 2, 4, 6, and 7 and we know that Victim 8 has not been identified - it seems more clear that ever that the Grand Jury Report is not the type of information to use in a rush to judgment. It seems the prosecutions case may be cut in half before it ever begins IF - and I do not pretend to judge veracity - the defense counsel is being truthful.
WHY THIS IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO PSU, PATERNO, CURLEY, SCHULTZ AND SPANIER.
The entire rush to judgment that labeled this case the PENN STATE SCANDAL is based on the Victim 2 incident of March 1, 2002, The national media started the narrative that Paterno and these administrators covered up the March 1, 2002 incident based on the Grand Jury Report stating a "Graduate Assistant
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."
There is no quote by McQueary and no Q&A just a summary of the most damaging possible claim designed to secure and justify an indictment of Sandusky. No attention was paid to how this might appear to the public as it regards Mike Mcqueary - since he was not named - or Joe Paterno - and both are presumed to be witnesses for the prosecution.
We have no idea how certain McQueary might be or if his observation was impaired by distance, water or steam, a few fleeting seconds in time, or a mental state of shocked disbelief. According to this Grand Jury Statement both Victim 2 and Sandusky noticed McQueary. According to the statements of the defense attorney Victim 2 says neither he nor Sandusky saw McQueary. This is a prime example of why we should wait until all the facts are in prior to rushing to judge the actions of anyone in this matter. Either the presumed Victim 2 is correct or McQueary was correctly reported in the Grand Jury Report - both cannot be true and we don't know what McQueary said.
The defense claims that Sandusky was contacted by Tim Curley the AD a few days after March 1, 2002 and Sandusky must have denied any wrong doing other than being in the shower with the boy. They claim that Sandusky gave the telephone number of the alleged victim 2 to the AD and then Sandusky called the boy and told him to tell the truth to any PSU official that called. Since he said "someone from Penn State" instead of Tim Curley the AD we might assume that Curley told Sandusky that an investigator would make that call.
I am not saying any of this is true but to me it is the logical thing to have happened. Once Curley and Schultz spoke with McQueary they had to do something. We know they took Sandusky's keys and forbade him from bringing any more boys on campus. They had to have contacted him or had him contacted in order to do that. We know they say they contacted Second Mile.
So what makes logical sense? Why wouldn't they ask Sandusky themselves or through a campus police officer for his version of the McQueary describe events? It makes no sense that they would not. And if they were told a credible story by Sandusky who then gave them the name of the alleged victim why wouldn't they contact that boy or have him contacted by a campus police investigator?
Now it seems likely that they would do those things and that the story told by Sandusky turned out to be credible and was backed up by the alleged victim 2 who said nothing happened but horseplay in the showers. That fits with what we know now I think. McQueary likely gave a confused and conflicted account of what he presumed instead of a certain and clear accusation because it is likely he could not be certain. With that on one side of the equation and the word of a respected community leader and head of a charity that must have seemed definite and credible but to cap it off the boy in question agreed with Sandusky's version of events. That's it. There is nothing to report to any other authority because there was nothing to investigate. McQueary was not certain and Sandusky and the boy say nothing sexual happened so what is left to investigate?
I will even go further and suggest that Curley informed both Paterno and McQueary what they found out and they were satisfied with the report they got. McQueary was so satisfied he agreed to be coached by Sandusky at the end of that month in a charity football game. Does that sound like a guy who was certain that Sandusky was raping a 10 year old boy?
You might ask why the DA chose to release the Victim 2 section of the Grand Jury Report and charge Curley and Schultz with perjury if he knew all of this. Well perhaps he did not know and perhaps he did not care. Bringing PSU into the case in this manner was sure to gain incredible publicity as it has. And the purpose of the report was to get Sandusky indicted and to justify that indictment. Maybe the DA was upset with Curley and Schultz for doing their own investigation and he was starting a turf war because Paterno was possibly a problem when he protected his players from police and discipline. Those cases are always good publicity for a prosecutor because the cameras and reporters come out in force in these instances and DA's want to be Congressmen and Governors.
It's difficult to know for certain anything that happened regarding March 1, 2002 and just as difficult to know what Mike McQueary described to Paterno, Curley or Schultz. But it is easy to see that the national media, certain politicians and the Board of Trustees rushed to judge based on the DA's report and Paterno, Penn State, Spanier and the AD and VP have suffered the consequences of this rush to judgment now firmly based on CONFLICTING information and NO VICTIM 2 for the DA and a Victim 2 who denies the allegations from the defense.
ONE THING REMAINS CLEAR - WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO JUDGE