Wednesday, July 4

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE

2 Second McQueary Visualizations: Who Is Responsible for the Damage to PSU & JoePa for that?
This should be interesting. When you really get into actual testimony the idea that Joe, Tim, Gary or Dr. Spanier should be blamed for not dealing correctly with Mike's 2001 2 second visualizations may seem silly. The fact that Penn State and these men are being dragged through the mud over a decade old decision because of what a shocked assistant coach 'might have said about 2 second glances is just plain crazy.
We know enough right now - emails and files don't matter. The Paternos should sue the socks off of Linda Kelly and the authors of the Presentment as should Penn State administrators. The Presentment was a damned LIE that cost them millions and all this hoorah about how the 2001 decision was made is ridiculous. The media hasn't read or absorbed the actual testimony under oath so those meatheads don't know Jack about how Mike visualized those 2 second glances and most likely neither did he. Here's why.
Mike McQueary was not the most important witness in the Sandusky trial but he is the most important element in the malicious defamation of PSU and Joe Paterno. Mike is the horse the AG rode in on and though I wish the horse *not Mike - were dead it is not. This is the best damn fanpost I've ever made. Sorry it took so long to get it right but I'm slow.
Two second visualizations that shook the sports world and cost PSU 12 million
I like Mike. In fact I got into this whole Black Shoe Diary - Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal by defending Mike on a UTSports Forum when Mike was being disparaged as the guy who witnessed a child being brutally raped and ran to call his daddy I viewed this video with Jon Ritchie who explained it better than I ever could.
Now eight months later my opinions and feelings about Mike have spanned the gamut. So let me make this clear. This analysis of Mike's actions and reactions is not a judgment. I can't say I would have handled anything any better than he has. Here is my slow minded interpretation of what has happened to Mike even if it took 8 damned months
Feb 9 2001 Mike thought 2-3 slapping sounds in the showers were an adult couple having sex. He visualized sex when he glimpsed JS behind a boy for 1 or 2 seconds twice. Shocked it wasn't adults he slammed his locker, came face to face with the boy and JS and was baffled when the boy did not show distress, pain or fear and was not protesting or crying out. In confusion he fled.
At home with his father and Dr. Dranov he's shaken thinking "What did I just see?" "What was JS doing with that boy?" "Should I have left the boy with him" and "What should I do now?" His explanation is muddled and confused as he is. The same is true the next morning when he speaks with Joe.
.
10 days later in a 10-12 minute meeting with Tim & Gary he is no more explicit or certain. He's glad to be done and fine with the decision when Tim informs the Second Mile that JS can't bring boys to PSU. The story ends for a decade. Mike is not certain he saw something sexual. If he was he couldn't have let it slide for a decade.
.
Then in 2010 he meets the AG's investigation. The AG has 5 or 6 victims. Mike hasn't thought about Feb of 2001 for a decade. The AG assures him his testimony is vital to put away a predator. He starts to visualize again.
Mike feels guilty. Was the boy in 2001 being raped? Did JS continue after he left? Could he have saved other boys? He's 37 now with friends who have children. Did his uncertainty lead to JS ruining more lives? Why didn't he do something that night or later? What can he do now to atone? Tortured by these questions he becomes a willing instrument of the AG who says his testimony is required to convict JS. He will do anything the AG asks.

We know about 2 or 3 slapping sounds and two 1 or 2 second glances of JS standing behind a boy not bent over, hands on the wall, feet on the floor who's head came to JS pectoral muscles. We know about the slammed locker door and the boy with no fear, pain or distress who was not crying out. He never said "thrusting" in fact he said "very little movement" It’s under oath in the Perjury Hearing Transcript. p 15
NO THRUSTING 111_aa_thrusting_jpg_medium
But the Grand Jury Presentment of Nov 5 says "He SAW the boy being subjected to anal intercourse and he told Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz" Those words hit the media in a firestorm of outrage and indignation. MM saw a kid being raped and didn't kick the crap out of bastard? MM runs home and calls his daddy? MM should serve jail time!!! scream the headlines. Now he has to do something to redeem himself.
.
The media is camped out on Mike's lawn. He is told he cannot coach. His idol and mentor is removed as head coach. PSU is called a den of enablers. Students protesting Joe's dismissal are said to be rioting to protect a child rapist. He and Joe are just a rung below JS on the evil scale. It's hard to imagine the pain and suffering he must have endured those first few weeks and since. This is totally unexpected. He did not know the AG was going after PSU or perjury on Tim and Gary.
.
We all know the Presentment Version vs the Perjury Hearing Version and what Mike told his dad, his doctor, his coach and what he says he told the AD and the VP

Did the verdicts on victim 2 in the JS trial mean the jury found Mike's 'intercourse story' credible OR did the not guilty verdict on the charge of deviate sexual intercourse mean the jury did not believe him? The latter is true of course. They voted Not Guilty on intercourse.
Count 7 - not guilty Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
Count 8 - guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 9 - guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Count 10 - guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Count 11 - guilty Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)
The verdicts on the actual victims that testified were enough to put JS away forever. His testimony was not that important. But now he is lauded as courageous and has a civil case as a whistle-blower.
Everything we now see in the media about these emails and the decisions made in 2001 are based on Mike explicitly telling Joe, Tim and Gary that he witnessed some sexual assault in no uncertain terms. Without the belief that these men were told of a crime their decisions in 2001 would not be in question. Adding 'I thought a sexual nature' is not definitive or important.
THIS IS NOT MIKE McQUEARY'S FAULT - He has been ill-used by the Attorney General
We can feel badly for Mike and the position he found himself in that night in 2001. We can sympathize with his desire to make up for 2001 by trying to do what the AG said he should to put JS away. We can understand if he didn't realize the ramifications of his words as far as Joe or PSU is concerned. But if he did not tell Joe, Tim and Gary that he was certain it was a sex act and not some horseplay? What then? If Mike were really convinced that JS was raping that boy in 2001 would he have remained silent for a decade? Would he have waited until he knew of the investigation in 2010 to raise questions about JS being around PSU with friends?
THE PRESENTMENT & AG'S PRESSER WERE VICIOUS SLANDER AND LIBEL
Is Mike is a tragic figure in this drama who has been ill-used by the AG to insure the conviction of JS and to unwillingly tarnish the image of PSU and Joe?
THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN ABOUT WHAT MIKE TOLD TIM and GARY.
NO ANAL INTERCOURSE
THERE IT IS WITHOUT AMBIGUITY - "I WOULD NOT HAVE USED THE WORDS ANAL INTERCOURSE" so why did the Grand Jury Presentment of Nov 5 that brought condemnation down on PSU and JoePa say you did? Who is to blame for that and what penalty will they pay for the words that destroyed the reputations of PSU and JoePa and 3 administrators?
WHY ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED? PSU AND JOEPA HAVE BEEN TRASHED BY LIES
This is Mike's total testimony at the Perjury hearing on what he said to the AD and VP He says "I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse" p 81. I would have said???
Well would you or did you? This is very important. You thought this took place in March 2002 but it didn't. Now you tell us what you "would have said" but you cannot tell us what you did say? Perjury depends on exact words not thoughts not would have but I said.
.
We know what you didn't say. You didn't say the words in the Grand Jury Presentment that created a tsunami of shame on PSU. Be very careful here. Your words are being used to put 2 or 3 men in prison. These words you "would have said" have already ruined reputations. A man who knows the truth of what he said would not say "I would have used........". He would say "I told them .........."
.
For "five or six minutes he explained the whole night" he told about 2-3 "sexual rhythmic" slapping sounds, visualizations, two 2 second glances and the positions of the two standing up with feet on the floor not bent over. Even if "he would have said extremely sexual" would it have made sense to them or you? Anal intercourse between a very large man and a 10 year old boy is painful and distressing and it cannot be accomplished in the positions he described. A 10 year old child could not "shut down" or block out that kind of pain.
Did Mike hate JS for making him feel like he failed that boy in 2001? Did he not do what he thought he should have done and did his guilt made him susceptible to the urging of prosecutors to embellish his story? He cannot be precise about what he said in those 5 or 6 minutes a decade ago. But the world is ripping Joe and PSU to shreds over them. How is that acceptable to anyone? I have tried to take Occam's Razor to this situation to arrive at the most likely explanations for the decisions that were made a decade in the past by competent good men who would never enable a predator or cover up his crimes.
Tim, Gary, Spanier & Joe are vilified over 2 Second Visualizations and a Rational Decision
I start from a presumption of innocence and good intentions by those who's lives and accomplishments deserve respect and benefit of the doubt without casting Mike as the bad guy. His intentions were also good but he is one and Joe, Tim, Gary and Dr. Spanier are four - all good men faced with one sick evil Jerry Sandusky and a terrible situation. The decision they made in 2001 seemed to hold up well for a decade and second guessing them now over 2 seconds? How does that make any sense?
A SECOND OR TWO111or_2_seconds_jpg_medium
A SECOND OR TWO and below MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS - no mistake said twice in answer to 2 questions
MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS 1111or_2_seconds_jpg_medium
how long were you actually looking? one or two seconds per glance each of 2 glances. Perjury Hearing Transcript page 12 lines 12 thru 14 and page 17 lines 4 thru 8 Go ahead and glance at anything in a mirror for 1 or 2 seconds. How can any 1 or 2 second glance show motion? How could you tell the difference between a man who just caught a kid about to fall or one who grabbed a boy to keep him from sliding into a wall or one who was doing sodomy?
Glance at anything you can for one or two seconds and see if you can come up with more than one version of what you saw. Now try it on an angle through a mirror. Would you be so certain of what you saw when you know you expected to see sex? Even if you were convinced would you truly expect to convince someone else? Why would you only glance for 1 or 2 seconds? And prosecutors think it's worthwhile to drag PSU and Joe through this madness for more months over a decision that satisfied Mike for a decade? I should make us Mad As Hell.
Can anyone think of another case where such a venerated institution with such accomplished people has been persecuted over 2 second glances a decade in the past where the criminal was caught and convicted? You should be Mad as Hell.
Anyone who wants to condemn decision makers at PSU over 2 second glances by a shocked young coach who was visualizing two adults having sex because of 2-3 slapping sounds seems rather impertinent. He was VISUALIZING sex? Or hallucinating maybe? Mike tells us what happened right here:
111aa_mental_image_embarrassed_p_56_jpg_medium VISUALIZATIONS? P 56
2 second visualizations vs 24 years of charity work, 30 years of coaching, and honors from the President and a US Senator? BULLSHIT. You would think anyone who reported JS over 2 second visualizations in 2001 was nuts. Only hindsight makes this seem reasonable. It's time to stop this blame madness.
It's time to get mad. I want you to get behind your computers and start posting this everywhere while shouting "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" Get to it PSU fans "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore". The AG flat out lied and brought down the networks on your heads so do it "Get as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" The AG lied and slandered your alma mater & coach over 2 second visualizations that couldn't convince any sane person of a crime. "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE'.


A FORUM FOR COMMENTS ON THIS POST HAS BEEN SET UP HERE 

28 comments:

  1. I've never really used this comment utility so anyone having problems can email me at aurabass@gmail.com
    I would like to know if it is a problem to use this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pretty compelling points worthy of reconsideration. Certainly, you've done your homework, aurabass. Might you have an alternative online identity by the name of Bushwood CC? Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No alternative identity
      Thank you for the comment

      Delete
  3. Pretty compelling, I agree. Certainly gives the whole situation a different slant. reminds me of the '96 Olympic bombing. all rushed to convict the wrong man. It takes very little high profile blood to start the frenzy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Anonymous
    Please join us on the New Forum for discussion
    http://notpsu.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1&page=1

    ReplyDelete
  5. From Mike *anonymous from the 1998 So Close to an End for Sandusky Thread - To Aurabass

    For example:

    Fact: As revealed in three testimonies, McQueary totally and completely believed he witnessed a molestation in Shower 2001!

    Fact: As revealed by his own testimony, Paterno believed a man, whom he knew extremely well and trusted, that an act of some kind of a “sexual nature” transpired between Sandusky and the kid.

    Fact: It must be assumed the assault on the kid was on-going that night, the next day, and beyond. There is no evidence nor “facts” that prove otherwise. For example: “Fact,” When someone is kidnapped, they remain in a kidnapped condition 24/7 until they are found, are discovered! Same axiom applies to a kid molested.

    Fact: Had that been JoePa’s grandson he never would have waited 24 hours. “Hypothetical Fact,“ upon receiving information Joe believed credible and true, he would have acted immediately without hesitation by going after Sandusky while speed dialing 911 -- immediately without hesitation!

    Fact: As revealed by comments posted across the country, millions of fathers and mothers are outraged with Paterno for not either counseling McQueary to call 911, or he himself calling 911 -- immediately without hesitation!
    Fact: As revealed totally and completely by testimony in three legal venues (and the Freeh report), upon hearing McQueary’s report, Paterno instantaneously replaced the image of the tragic little boy with the image of Sandusky.

    Fact: In fact, as revealed by testimony and all the evidence both circumstantial and direct, the “Un-Magnificent Seven” of Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary, his father, the incompetent Dr. Dranov, and Spanier, all instantaneously made the child victim invisible, ignored, abandoned!

    Fact; Paterno could have stolen money, paid off players, had a college coed on the side, but his unforgivable mortal sin was failing to bring aid and help, immediately without hesitation, to a child in immediate danger.

    Fact: Unconscionable!

    PS I don't rely, never relied on on the Freeh Report for my facts. And I have never said JoePa covered anything up! But what I have said, based on many testimonies, JoePa made a very calculating horrific decision in Shower 2001! For this he must be held accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fact: As revealed in three testimonies, McQueary totally and completely believed he witnessed a molestation in Shower 2001!

    NO that is not a fact. Above in this thread you will see his actual testimony or you can read it at the LINK – Perjury Hearing Transcript provided on the right side of this page above.
    I point you to this post to see his actual words about his 2 second glances
    http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/06/mcqueary-testimonies-and-contradictions.html
    19 A I didn't know what to think. On that
    20 first -- on that first ‘look through the mirror,
    21 I'm not sure what my -- I didn't know what to
    22 think. I wasn't even sure I was seeing what I
    23 was seeing.

    That’s also part of his testimony. We know at some point he told Joe something Joe recalled as “fondling or whatever you call it” and “ a sexual nature” That is 9 words of a 10 minute meeting he had with Joe and that was as explicit as he got.
    Did he tell him his whole story about 3 slapping sounds and 2 second glances?
    Did he say he wasn’t sure but he suspected?
    Did he tell him the boy seemed calm and showed no pain or fear?
    We have no idea what he had to say in 10 minutes besides the “maybe fondling” and the “a sexual nature” Was it “I thought there were two adults having sex in the shower and when I heard those 3 slapping sounds I thought they were of a sexual nature”.


    Fact: As revealed by his own testimony, Paterno believed a man, whom he knew extremely well and trusted, that an act of some kind of a “sexual nature” transpired between Sandusky and the kid.

    NOT A FACT: We have no idea what he had to say in 10 minutes besides the “maybe fondling” and the “a sexual nature” Was it “I thought there were two adults having sex in the shower and when I heard those 3 slapping sounds I thought they were of a sexual nature

    Fact: It must be assumed the assault on the kid was on-going that night, the next day, and beyond. There is no evidence nor “facts” that prove otherwise. For example: “Fact,” When someone is kidnapped, they remain in a kidnapped condition 24/7 until they are found, are discovered! Same axiom applies to a kid molested.

    NOT A FACT: Nothing “must be assumed”

    Fact: Had that been JoePa’s grandson he never would have waited 24 hours. “Hypothetical Fact,“ upon receiving information Joe believed credible and true, he would have acted immediately without hesitation by going after Sandusky while speed dialing 911 -- immediately without hesitation!

    NOT A FACT: We have no idea how Joe would feel about his grandson showering with Jerry Sandusky. I’m reasonably certain Jerry would never risk that with Joe’s grandson.
    We do know this was a man Joe had known for 30 years.

    continued below

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact: As revealed by comments posted across the country, millions of fathers and mothers are outraged with Paterno for not either counseling McQueary to call 911, or he himself calling 911 -- immediately without hesitation!

      SO WHAT?: Millions of people like you are totally misinformed about what Mike said beginning with the bald faced LIE in the PRESENTMENT of NOV 5 2011.. That Mike SAW anal intercourse and told Joe that is what he saw. That LIE made millions believe that is what happened but even you know hat is a LIE. He told Joe “maybe fondling” and the words ‘a sexual nature’ in some phrase in 10 minutes of conversation.

      Fact: As revealed totally and completely by testimony in three legal venues (and the Freeh report), upon hearing McQueary’s report, Paterno instantaneously replaced the image of the tragic little boy with the image of Sandusky.

      HUH? I have no idea what this means and you willl have to provide that testimony and the Freeh Report statements if you want to discuss anything like this with me.

      Fact: In fact, as revealed by testimony and all the evidence both circumstantial and direct, the “Un-Magnificent Seven” of Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary, his father, the incompetent Dr. Dranov, and Spanier, all instantaneously made the child victim invisible, ignored, abandoned!

      FACT? I begin to wonder if you know what the word FACT means.

      Fact; Paterno could have stolen money, paid off players, had a college coed on the side, but his unforgivable mortal sin was failing to bring aid and help, immediately without hesitation, to a child in immediate danger.

      Bullshit – a report the next morning as vague and muddled as “maybe fondling” and “a sexual nature” does not imply any child in immediate danger. Particularly when we can be certain that McQueary told Joe that he had stopped it by slamming the locker door.
      If their was immediate danger or molestation in progress then Mike was the only one who could stop it then and there. 30 minutes later his father and Doctor were the only ones who could stop it then and there.
      And you wanting to condemn a 75 year old football coach for not doing what a 28 year old coach, the CEO of a medical business and a Doctor of Medicine did not think it was necessary to do? What is it that seems to qualify Joe over these other three men who are perfectly capable and who knew that whatever was happening was happening that night Within 20 or 30 minutes.

      Delete
    2. Fact: Unconscionable!
      YES I think your willingness to pass off these “facts” as FACT is unconscionable
      I think your blaming Joe Paterno for contacting the proper people in the chain of administrative command that weekend over a vague report that was at WORST maybe fondling or a sexual nature is beyond absurd.
      Your ability to comprehend what is fact separate from your agenda “all instantaneously made the child victim invisible, ignored, abandoned!” is a problem for you.


      PS I don't rely, never relied on on the Freeh Report for my facts. And I have never said JoePa covered anything up! But what I have said, based on many testimonies, JoePa made a very calculating horrific decision in Shower 2001! For this he must be held accountable.

      I don’t see any testimony in your entire screed beyone “a sexual nature” completely without context. And like you many have completely destroyed the reputation of a fine man who has done many many good and decent things in a well lived life over these three words out of context that he still reported to the proper people.

      JOE Paterno will never have a day in court to defend himself. People like you are accusing him of “calculating horrific decisions” over these 3 words out of a 10 minute meeting you have no idea about. You have ZERO context for these 3 words. That makes you the worst kind of self righteous stone thrower. A man with very little knowledge tearing down a good and decent man over something you know almost nothing about.
      You and other’s like you should be ashamed of your selves. Your condemnation is worthless and ill advised. You heap your scorn on a 75 year old over “a sexual nature”?
      Do you have any idea how absurd, mean spirited, and awful that sounds? What have you ever done with your life to positively affect the lives of 1000’s of young men like Joe did with his. His player have the highest graduation rate in all of college football. His donations built libraries and because you think you know what was said in a 10 minute meeting in Feb of 2001 you think you have the right to lay your judgment on him?
      SHAME ON YOU.

      Delete
    3. From Mike Simons

      Aurabass, here’s what I believe is the difference between you and me when we are making an assessment of Shower 2001. I’ve admired JoePa for close to fifty years. So my positive estimation of him as a man and a coach is well documented and well known. I have also been a professional child advocate for fifty years, advocating in particular for kids in need, at risk, intellectually and physically challenged, and developmentally exceptional.

      Despite my admitted bias for Paterno, my whole perspective, my whole emotional reaction, my judgment on Shower 2001 has to do specifically with a kid who was revealed to be in the state of sexual molestation by a trusted, well known colleague of JoePa. Reading this in November of 2011 caused me to instantaneously think kid first -- above everything else! And it was revealed JoePa in testimony accepted from the redhead that something of a “sexual nature” did in fact occur between Sandusky and the kid.

      So again, upon reading the quoted reactions of the two people who were charged with the responsibility of reporting of this event, all I could think about was the welfare, the safety of the unknown child. Aurabass, in all my writings I think “kid!” In all your writings, you ignore the kid and reject he was in any trouble, and you concentrate solely upon the actions you feel were righteous of Paterno. That’s the difference between us and it’s a difference that has corrupted your judgment. Why? How? Please read on.

      On Page 13 of the Preliminary Report, McQueary was very clear about what he witnessed on two separate and consistent times. And from what he witnessed those two times convinced him that Sandusky was molesting the kid! Period! His description of what he visually observed was incredibly clear and the assumption he made, incredibly clear. Period! Aura, even if his judgment were to be found eventually wrong, the obvious “suspicion” he created of what he saw was all that was needed (legally and ethically) to call 911 immediately without hesitation. Aura, that’s what you would have done and that’s what I would have done. There is no time for speculating here or philosophizing. You call a policing authority to immediately come in to secure the safety of the child and investigate the charge that a molestation had occurred. That’s it! Simple common sense! A simple instinctive reaction by any witness, any boss, any superior, any you or any I.

      To be continued

      Delete
    4. Mike Simonms continued...

      And Aura, you pathetically try to understate and mislead what McQueary said to JoeP and what Paterno, in your opinion, heard. You are being disingenuous here Aura. Paterno very clearly understood, despite McQueary’s choice of words, that something of a “sexual nature” had occurred. And he relayed that very specific understanding to Curley when he later announced to the athletic director, “We have a problem.” And again, if Paterno even disbelieved the redhead, the fact that even a suspicion of a molestation had been voiced, he was legally and morally obliged to contact a policing authority. Again, Pennsylvania law for reporting such events is always dismissed, set aside when there is discovered an on-going act of abuse. Period!

      Again and again, in any event similar to Shower 2001, you always, that’s always, think “kid” first and police second. And had that been an adult stranger in the shower room, that’s exactly what would have happened!

      But that is exactly what didn’t happen. Why? Because unlike you and me Aura, Paterno and McQueary instinctively thought of Sandusky first -- not the kid. And the evidence both circumstantial and direct screams out this truth! In fact, the tragic common thread that winds its way throughout the mentality of the “Un-Magnificent Seven” (Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, McQueary, his father, and the incompetent Dr. Dranov) is the image of Jerry Sandusky -- not the kid. All testimony (even the Freeh Report) reveals that it is a fact that the kid was abandoned, ignored, made invisible by all, to all, from all!

      The total concern was for Sandusky Aura, the evidence revealed demands this judgment -- demands this truth.

      Yes, I am allowed to state that the kid in Shower 2001 was in the state of molestation that evening, that night, the next day. There is no proof or facts to say otherwise. I thought it pathetic Aura, when you wrote that McQueary stopped the interaction by slamming his locker door. Intimating that the alleged molestation was finally over. Shame on you! And no one seems to know where the kid (now an adult) is? He may even have been killed by Sandusky! Whether you consider my speculation bazaar, okay. But that is exactly why a policing authority needed to be called in immediately without hesitation. Had they been, statements about what happened to the kid would never today be asked.

      And Aura, this my hypothetical works here. Had that been McQueary’s nephew with Sandusky -- yeah that’s right, immediately without hesitation. Had that been JoePa’s grandson -- yeah that’s right, immediately without hesitation. But the “fact” is, that kid was unknown by all! And the “fact” is, that adult was very well known by all!

      Sigh! Your turn.

      Delete
    5. To Aura from Mike Simons

      You claim zero context exists to find fault with JoePa and his handling of McQueary. My last two posts establish all the contex needed to demonstrate the horrific decisions by both men!

      Delete
    6. Basing your condemnation of Joe and anyone else on the human condition of trusting people you've worked with closely for 30 years to be the person you believed them to be - is futile and fruitless.
      Joe's 30 years of experience with JS would automatically become the central thing in his mind. - Aided by the 1998 report saying JS was not a pedophile or criminal after the Victim 6 incident.
      That is the way people are. We have people in our lives who we form an opinion of based on 30 years of close experience.

      I cannot see what it is you want here. For me it's simple
      Mike's 3 slaps and 2 second glances gave Joe some vague suspicion that "maybe" some fondling or something of a sexual nature was involved. He reported that and sent Mike to the men who were supposed to handle that kind of thing despite his 30 year experience with Jerry as an extremely close associate.
      For me that seems like it was totally appropriate given this was the following day. The only people who could have intervened that night included Mike, his father, and Dr. Dranov. But they brought it to Joe who gave it to Tim and Gary. For this Joe's legacy is ruined his reputation trashed and he's dead and in the ground.

      Is there something else you want from him?

      Delete
  7. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/163472006.html?cmpid=15585797

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We read this and linked it on the website here
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/in-defense-of-joe-paterno.html
      and we have tried to reach Mr. Harrison via email.

      Delete
  8. From Mike

    Aurabass, again you use hyperbole to mislead and confuse! Untrue! I have never ever condemned my JoePa. But I have definitely condemned his decision, his choice, his behavior in Shower 2001. And it’s that behavior that I’m trying to separate (without your help) from his great an admirable legacy. Yes, your blind and misapplied attempts to irrationally protect Paterno are doing the exact opposite of your intentions. Yes, by not joining me in condemning his actions, you extend the hate, the disrespect, the vilification my JoePa is getting all over the country. Shame on you for refusing to understand this reality!

    Aurabass: “Is there something else you want from him?”

    No Aura, I don’t want anything from JoePa. And I never have! Again, unlike you, this has always been about the kid. Not JoePa! Not the numb nuts who collectively made sure that kid in Shower 2001 remained unknown and unattended throughout their collective deliberations.

    But Aura, I definitely want something from you! I want something from you because you represent the “see no evil; hear no evil“ types that abound this whole scandal. And again, what I want from you is the understanding that by not holding the great man accountable for his great misbegotten choice, you spit on his grave!

    I want you to recognize for the first time, that the behavior of seven men towards that Shower event, once and at the same time, validates, proves, their collective motives. Motives that always appealed to the presence of Sandusky and reject unceremoniously the little boy victim.

    I want you to admit that there was no doubt in any of the seven’s minds, that an adult taking a shower with a little boy, late on a Friday night, in a locked university gym, was immediate cause to question the appropriateness of the “behavior” of that adult.

    I want you to finally recognize that the abandonment physically and emotionally of a little boy by the ”Un-Magnificent Seven” was the single most fundamental, most egregious, most confounded of actions. Actions upon which this society exploded in anger when it realized a child was so callously cast aside.

    I want you to finally realize the “behavior” that created this incredible tragedy (and this incredible scandal) is a mentality also shared and expressed by yourself! Yes, you talk about every little particle, every minute second recorded, and every person involved with Shower 2001, but you never talk about the kid. It’s like since he’s so unknown to everyone else, by golly, he’s going to be equally unknown to yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  9. From Mike

    I want you to finally accept your own behavior of how you pathetically mislead and manipulated facts to ensure the unimportance and the insignificance of the kid and the insignificance of McQueqary's witnessing. To whit, Shower 2001 is not about “seconds” and “slaps” and “running to the father!” It’s about Paterno never ever questioning McQueary! Yes, it’s true! He never questioned McQueary because he totally and completely accepted that something untoward sexually was applied by Sandusky upon a child. And for the next few months and the rest of the eight years, he never once discussed that night or Sandusky with the redhead! Unbelievable. Unbelievable but true!

    And your Curley and your Schultz instantaneously (see Preliminary Hearing testimony) believed from JoePa that something sexually untoward occurred in that shower room. They demonstrated so emphatically about accepting as true the alleged abuse by their unbelievable behavior when they delayed seeing the redhead for ten days. That's ten incredible days! And when they finally did meet, it was only “once” for ten minutes -- ten unbelievable minutes! These are explicit “behaviors” that explicitly scream out what these men intended -- what these men contemplated. They all at once realized that Sandusky could cause problems for PSU and that could ignite a hailstorm of bad publicity. And by golly, they were right!

    I want you to finally admit, the aforementioned behaviors were the result of men who possessed preconceived notions about the inappropriateness of Sandusky around small boys.

    I want you to admit (to yourself!) that a kid was in harm’s way that evening. And seven men calculatingly and cunningly dismissed his presence, his safety, in favor of a man whom they knew as famous, well liked -- an icon! But a man whom they knew could cause a cataclysmic disaster for Penn State!

    Aurabass, it’s about these all too revealing behaviors that I’ve addressed my judgments. The same judgments every pundit of the press, every mother and father, every human being who has learned of these behaviors have arrived at.

    Yes, Aurabass, it’s about you and anyone else who hasn’t finally been honest with themselves by misevaluating the facts and the evidence that cries out the truth of these people’s behaviors.

    Again, the hypothetical works here. Had it been JoePa’s grandson, McQueary’s nephew, your son, my son, we all would have conjured kid first, we all would have secured his safety -- immediately without hesitation!

    ReplyDelete
  10. How would you know if the never identified "victim" 2 who Mike observed for 2 second glances was a foster grandchild of Sandusky's?
    How would you know he was a foster child in Sandusky's care through his well known charity?

    You wouldn't.
    This is becoming tedious and is going nowhere. You jump to conclusions based on facts not in evidence in Feb of 2001.

    Somehow you would have stopped what Mike, his father, his doctor, Joe, Tim and Gary and others failed to stop in 2001. You are/were some kind of childcare expert so I imagine you might have even if you happened to be working for The Second Mile.
    OR perhaps not
    Jerry Sandusky worked closely with Dr of Child Psychology Raykovitz for 18 years and with his staff of trained childcare specialists. Did you ever stop to ask yourself how these people who like you are trained to spot abused kids and pedophiles FAILED to do what you think non professionals should have known?
    How about that guidance counselor at the HS of Victim 1 or the wrestling coach who found JS and victim one on a mat in the gym after school? These were trained pros working with children too.

    But you want to jump on the condemn PSU and Joe bandwagon? Why is that?

    I can see you are upset and not thinking clearly. Your comments are evidence of that. You have a lot of trouble identifying what a FACT is. It's a problem for you and it makes me wonder what it is about childcare professionals like the CEO and staff of The Second Mile or the staff at victim 1's highschool that kept them from seeing JS for who he was. Or did they somehow think the good he did outweighed the bad.
    In the coming days you will see more information about what CYS knew and when they knew it back in 1998. For some reason they and the staff at The Second Mile knowing of multiple children showering with JS did nothing to stop it. That's right - professional child care experts knew and did nothing - but you blame a 75 year old football coach? What is your agenda again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Mike fails to recognize is that Joe and PSU have already paid an incredibly unfair price for any failings they might have.
      But where's the Justice in that.
      What about the failure of CYS in 1998?
      What about the failure of Tom Corbett and Linda Kelly?
      and
      most importantly what about the failure of The Second Mile administration?

      Who engineered the real cover up in 1998?
      PSU and Joe may have made a mistake in 2001 but it was one of omission. There is no evidence whatever of any coverup to protect a football program - that is a fantasy constructed by Freeh.

      But someone engineered a cover up in 1998 and used Joe as the scapegoat to distract from the real villains. That is what this website is about. Mike fails to grasp that.

      Delete
    2. Mike and anyone else reading these comments needs to see the first post on today's front page. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-saved-sandusky-in-1998-tom-corbett.html

      Professional child care people at CYS and The Second Mile knew of multiple showering incidents in 1998 and allowed Jerry Sandusky to continue unimpeded. Yet so many want to blame a football coach because he was not sufficiently alarmed by yet another report of JS in a shower with a boy?

      GOOD GRIEF - if the people charged with a child's welfare like CYS and The Second Mile saw nothing wrong with it why should Joe or PSU administrators think otherwise?

      Delete
  11. To: Aurabass From: Mike

    Thank you for your response. I respect your opinions and judgments. I really do. We both have one thing in common -- our admiration for JoePa and the recognition of his great legacy.

    Wow! Finally you talk about the kid. You recognize his existence!He is the central most important personage, the most important consideration regarding the understanding, the illumination, the clarity of Shower 2001. Thank you. The kid is what drives all my judgments -- motivates all my resolutions!

    YOU: “How would you know if the never identified "victim" 2 who Mike observed for 2 second glances was a foster grandchild of Sandusky's? How would you know he was a foster child in Sandusky's care through his well known charity? “

    You confuse the purpose of my hypothetical. I have never claimed nor known he was anyone’s grandchild or foster child. These are statements you pulled out of thin air!! These are not established facts! And it’s totally and completely irrelevant the identity of the kid. Irrelevant because that kid was someone’s son, grandchild, foster placement. Irrelevant to the fact he needed help immediately without hesitation! Period. Again and again, that unknown boy kid was observed to be in trouble by a trusted and well thought of employee! Forget your 2 seconds! People are killed in less time!

    The whole point Aura, you stubbornly refuse to digest, is that you and I know nothing about what happened in that shower room aside from a witnessed suspicion of molestation; and along with Paterno and the redhead, we know nothing about the kid. And that is exactly why all instincts (and all common sense) is directed towards calling a policing authority to investigate and make the “proper, legal” judgment. And as I stipulated so many times, the behavior of the two coaches reveals, screams out, that both had no interest in the kid, but total and complete interest in the alleged abuser. An interest that has outraged me and should outrage yourself, Aura.

    YOU: “Somehow you would have stopped what Mike, his father, his doctor, Joe, Tim and Gary and others failed to stop in 2001.”

    Based on the passion you have so readily expressed on this forum, I believe without question, if the redhead had approached either one of us, we would have immediately deferred to the police. Why, because we would be worried about the alleged victim. And even if we were suspicious of McQueary’s suspicion, we would instinctively -- legally and ethically -- rely on professional policing investigators to discover the truth of the matter -- immediately without hesitation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To Aura

    Now for the tenth time, the facts, the evidence, the testimony, all clearly reveal that Mike, the father, the incompetent doctor, Joe, Tim, Gary (and Graham too) all failed to stop what you and I and the masses would have stopped for one reason. You and I and the masses would have had no interest or consideration for the alleged molester as regards his identity! The Un-Magnificent Seven, however, brought, conjured their entire attention 100% upon a man they knew personally so well -- Jerry Sandusky. There’s no mystery here Aura! Forget about it! They all purposefully and calculatingly focused on Jerry. And the main two people who orchestrated that disasterous focus were Paterno and McQueary -- period!

    YOU: “and with his staff of trained childcare specialists. Did you ever stop to ask yourself how these people who like you are trained to spot abused kids and pedophiles FAILED to do what you think non professionals should have known? How about that guidance counselor… or the wrestling coach who found JS and victim one on a mat…? These were trained pros working with children too. But you want to jump on the condemn PSU and Joe bandwagon? Why is that? “

    Good points Aura, and accurate and truthful. But everything you stated in this previous paragraph is totally, is completely, is 100% IRRELEVANT! Irrelevant because they have nothing to do with what those two men were obliged to do legally and ethically at that very moment in Shower 2001. A tragic moment JoePa managed to drag out a full 24 hours after the redhead's report! A moment that needed to be addressed immediately irrespective of all the actions and inactions of the past. Those actions and inactions Aura, are the stuff for agencies and courtrooms to follow up (and that is exactly what’s happening today). But again and again, those actions and inactions are irrelevant to what needed to be done specifically for that kid at that moment. And Aura, if your honest with me and yourself, you will admit you don’t disagree!

    YOU: “That's right - professional child care experts knew and did nothing - but you blame a 75 year old football coach? What is your agenda again?”

    Again, as I have just explained, irrelevant to what that child needed. And yes, JoePa and the redhead must be held accountable for abandoning, ignoring, trivializing an innocent little boy. And yes, 75 year old JoePa was a professional educator who had the advantage, the know-how, the benefit of having 75 years of experience to deal with situations immoral, corrupt, and critical. Aura, please get off that old age thing you always try to intimate. That doesn’t work with me, the masses, or even yourself (and you know it)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aura continued...

      You: “What Mike fails to recognize is that Joe and PSU have already paid an incredibly unfair price for any failings they might have.“

      My focus and what I do recognize is the total "incredibly unfair price" an unknown little boy paid in 2001 -- and for the rest of his life!

      YOU: “What about the failure of CYS in 1998? What about the failure of Tom Corbett and Linda Kelly, and most importantly what about the failure of The Second Mile administration? Who engineered the real cover up in 1998?”

      Facts for another discussion, another investigation. But facts totally irrelevant to the investigation needed to be made immediately in 2001. An event that was thwarted by two men who knew better, but didn’t do better. When that kid was instantaneously made invisible, the “cover up” began its insidious journey.

      YOU: “But someone engineered a cover up in 1998 and used Joe as the scapegoat to distract from the real villains. That is what this website is about. Mike fails to grasp that.”

      The cover up of Shower 1998 is your cause, your judgment, your evaluation. Great! But that cause has nothing to do with the faulty, calculated behavior of two men who were actively present to a scene of an alleged on-going molestation, but did absolutely nothing to stop that despicable activity. Aura, you cite history, dozens of agencies, and dozens of people who established the root causes for shower 2001. And you use these citations to nullify, to offset, to mislead, to misdirect everyone from the single most important outcome of Shower 2001 -- the abandonment of the kid. And Aura, that abandonment is critical to my “not hidden” agenda of demonstrating to all who read our rants, that in any situation even remotely similar to Shower 2001, there is only one legal and moral action to make -- evertime, all the time!

      And I fear, the many people out there (including yourself) who, after all these months, still don’t get it! You all intellectualize what should have been done, what was done, what could have been done. But fail to understand what had to be done first and foremost for the sake of the kid (and not for the sake of JoePa, social agencies, administrators, and all the other protagonists involved)!

      Bottom line: The history you cite of public and private agencies assigned to protect kids will never change, will never address the specific accountability that must be bestowed specifically on two people!

      YOU: “Professional child care people at CYS and The Second Mile knew of multiple showering incidents in 1998 and allowed Jerry Sandusky to continue unimpeded. Yet so many want to blame a football coach because he was not sufficiently alarmed by yet another report of JS in a shower with a boy? GOOD GRIEF - if the people charged with a child's welfare like CYS and The Second Mile saw nothing wrong with it why should Joe or PSU administrators think otherwise?’

      GOOD GRIEF! You cite how people and agencies historically failed kids, historically hid and covered up assaults upon kids, and for that reason, JoePa and McQueary get a pass for doing the same thing (failing and covering up a kid’s immediate need for protection)! Geeeeeeze! Aura, I get it now. Your hidden agenda is to defend your logic, your intellectual understanding, your never to be debated notions, your astute and superior knowledge of Shower 2001. And tied into that agenda is your fear that any criticism of JoePa is a betrayal, a rejection, a renunciation of the great man. No, no, and no!

      My unhidden agenda is to bring revelation and resolution to that specific period of 24 hours that saw two men do the absolute opposite of what anyone else would have considered, anyone else that is who believed the kid was the single most important consideration.

      Delete
  13. SIGH!

    Joe Paterno was man enough to display his distress over a choice distressful! Now Aura, are you man enough, secure enough, brave enough to finally accept, acknowledge the accountability JoePa and his redheaded partner must accept for Shower 2001.

    Thus to allow JoePa to attain the resolution, the forgiveness, and the understanding he deserves without question, we must acknowledge his horrific decision and acknowledge from that misjudgment all of us, his supporters as well as his detractors, have learned forever so much about child abuse in this society. And have learned what to do about child abuse -- immediately without hesitation!

    In order for My JopPa "to rest in peace," that little boy must be finally allowed "to live in peace."

    Namaste

    ReplyDelete
  14. To Aurabas from Mike

    Sorry if I wore you out! Lol!

    I think your lack of response indicates you finally understand my agenda as not being one to disparage the JoePa. And I think you finally get it that it’s the little child in Shower 2001 who must be the entire focus, the entire concern here.

    By taking a reasonable, common sense, unbiased view of this tragic event, it is self evident, palpable, unmistakable, that a child was, at the very least, suspected to have been in a life threatening, emotional debilitating circumstance. This is the first conclusion, the only conclusion you, I, or anyone else would arrive. Anyone that is not directly involved physically and emotionally with the alleged perpetrator.

    And finally Aura, you must now conclude as I, that the evidence both circumstantial and direct screams out the hideous truth of Shower 2001. That awful truth being that the little boy victim was instantaneously abandoned, trivialized, made invisible by the two people who were in the absolute position to save his humanity
    -- immediately without hesitation!

    Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you were so concerned about the child in the shower.you'd want to know how he got there.Paterno didn' t send Sandusky out with that boy.the Second Mile did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ugh, I just read through about half of this screed in the comments section. Several things bothered the hell out of me from the article and the comments:

    First, I want to say that Barry Bozeman makes a hell of a lot of valid points that have not been directly responded to by the anti-Joe Paterno crowd.

    However, the way in which Bozeman writes, screams of "talking head" tactics: That is: Rhetoric. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore," And capitalizing it, in all caps at some points, and bolded.... repeating this over and over again and in that manner hurts the credibility of the actual points you make. (Also, your grammar tends to be atrocious. Just sayin'.)

    In the comment: Anonymous (AKA Mike Simmons) keeps using particular phrases, again, purely for emotional rhetorical purposes. He has nothing to say to counter Bozeman's points.

    Phrases I am talking about:

    1. "Shower 2001!" He doesn't use the word "the" in front of it, and capitalizes the "S." A clear demonstration that he is talking through emotion, as opposed to logic.

    2. "The Un-Magnificent Seven." Obviously, purely rhetorical, and completely pointless. He then claims that Dr. Dranov is "incompetent" without any supporting facts or evidence.

    He passes a whole lot of assumption off as "facts," and only uses 9 words from Joe Paterno's testimony as his "evidence." (Pretty weak evidence, that. There is a whole slew of psychological studies done about the tenuous and manipulative nature human memory. There is also the fact that Joe Paterno was not cross-examined; a crucial component for establishing a logical basis for a likely assumption.)

    At one point, he makes the ridiculous assumptive claim that Victim 4 "could be dead" merely because "we do not know who he was." This, again, is based purely on an emotional response, as opposed to a rational mind.

    Show us some records of a missing person....a boy around the ages of 8 - 12 and between the years 2001 and 2003 in the State College area. Otherwise, I am going to call this as a lot more bullshit emotional rhetoric.

    Has the quality of a discussion of a high-profile case really sunk so low? (Reminds me of a South Park episode where the "bar of American civilization has sunk so low, only James Cameron was able to retrieve it with his sub."

    ReplyDelete
  17. شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام تقدم خدمات لا حصر لها رائعة لتلبية طلبات العميل وتحقيق كل ما يتمناه في خدمات نقل العفش بالدمام فثقتنا في اعمالنا جيدة قد وضعتنا كخبراء داخل مجال نقل الاثاث حيث يتم التشاور مع حقيبة مختلطة من داخل شركة نقل عفش بالدمام عن اختيار المواد الخاصة بك والمواد أو الأشياء من على عتبة منزلك لتصل جميع ممتلكاتك بأمان إلى المكان الذي ترغب فيه
    شركة نقل الاثاث بجدة لدينا ميل الي التفكير في إعطاء نوع من الإدارات لدي شركة نقل اثاث بجدة التي تطوير انفسهم ومتابعة كل ما هو حديث في عالم نقل الاثاث المنزلي والبحث عن الطرق الحديثة التي تؤدي الي انجاز المهمة بكل سهولة والتي تترك نجاح باهر يمكن أن يساعد على ارضاء نفسية عملائنا.لدينا الميل في شركة نقل عفش بجدة إلى أن يشار جيدا إلى السيارات الحديثة التي نمتلكها علي انها ذات كفاءة عالية كما نمتلك عمال تنزيل علي اعلي مستوي كما يوجد لدينا في خدمة نقل عفش بجدة
    فنين فك وتركيب لديهم القدرة الكافية علي التعامل مع جميع انواع الاثاث كما اننا نمتاز باننا نمتلك المغلفون الذين يقومون بتغليف جميع الاثاث المنزلي للحفاظ عليه من الغبار والتكسير كل هذه العوامل التي تقدمها شركتنا نتيجة للمعيار والتنمية والعقل
    شركة نقل الاثاث بمكةتكتشف مجموعتنا الخاصة في فريق شركة نقل اثاث بمكة في خدمتك في أي وقت من اليوم وأنها مستعدة للبقاء طيلة الوقت لمساعدتك في نقل اثاث منزلك سواء كان بيتك كبير او صغير قهذه ميزة الشركات الكبيرة التي تقدم الخدمات المتميزة فنحن نأمل دائما لإعطاء أفضل انطباع من تجربة نقل ممتازة. يتم اتخاذ كل خطوة الرعاية من قبل فريقنا والتعامل مع أفضل طريقة ممكنة. لدينا في شركة نقل عفش بمكة المتخصصين هم أيضا على استعداد للرد على الاحتياجات الفورية لعملائنا الكرام.
    مستودعات تخزين الاثاث بالرياضالتعبئة والتغليف واحدة من أكثر المعترف بها في خدمة نقل وتخزين الاثاث بالرياض فخدمة التعبئة والتغليف لدي شركة تخزين اثاث بالرياض يمكن أن يحصل على انتباه الكثير من العملاء وهذا يرجع ببساطة إلى أننا نواصل الوفاء بطلباتهم. كما قمنا بتطوير وواصلنا تقديم أفضل الخدمات التي تحافظ علي ممتلكتهم في مستودعات تخزين العفش التي تكمل في الحفاظ علي الأموال المدفوعة في ممتلكتهم لحين الرجوع اليها مرة أخري
    شركة تخزين اثاث
    الشيء المثير للإعجاب بالنسبة الينا في شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض هو أن فريقنا على استعداد لخدمتك في أي وقت من اليوم لطالما كنت بحاجة لدينا فنحن نواصل إقناع عملائنا التأمين علي جميع العناصر الخاصة بهم. هذا هو السبب الرئيسي لماذا بقينا على أنها

    ReplyDelete