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 millionI 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
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 GeneralWe 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 LIBELIs 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?
WHY ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED? PSU AND JOEPA HAVE BEEN TRASHED BY LIESThis 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 DecisionI 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?
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:
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