by Barry Bozeman
WE have challenged certain statements and charges involving Presentment of the Attorney General, The Freeh Report, the Perjury Charges against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and various other contentions by the Media, the PSU Board of Trustees, the Governor and the NCAA. The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website and the FREEHdom Fighters invite your participation as we test the verisimilitude of certain theories and hypotheses.
AS AN EXAMPLE: Your challenge with this first test is to read the following material and to offer any alternate theory you wish to compose and we will cover it.
POLL: There is a poll at the bottom of this webpage with several selections. You may choose multiple answers or select OTHER and add your opinion in the comment section.
First up is the Assertion by Attorney General Linda Kelly in the Presentment to wit: Mike McQueary saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse by Jerry Sandusky and told that to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. These are from Findings of Fact, Victim 2 , pages 6 and 7 or the Presentment
These words sent a shock wave through the country, got John Surma leave to stop Joe's press conference and fire the head coach starting a Media tsunami that left the reputation of a fine man and institution in tatters. Were these words a fair description of Mike McQueary's testimony by the Attorney General?
That is what we will try to decide at this time in this forum. We now have all the pertinent testimony of Mike McQueary along with pictures of the scene of the "crime". So we can put it all together and arrive at a fair finding of fact.
The first people Mike spoke to following a 45 second locker room visit were his father John McQueary and close family friend and Doctor Jonathan Dranov. This first account was delivered within 30 minutes of the locker room visit.
Dr. Dranov testified to the following:
Here it is quite clear that the first account given by Mike McQueary according to Dr. Dranov said nothing about seeing anal intercourse. If you think this account is the most accurate the top answer in our poll is probably your choice.
Dr. Dranov tells us:
He saw a boy's head look out from the shower room area. The boy did not seem to be upset or frightened. An arm reached out and drew the boy back inside. Afterwards Jerry Sandusky walked out of the shower. Dr Dranov asks Mike what he saw three times - Mike keeps referring to the sounds.
We would propose that the first account is the most accurate and a normal person would be more comfortable telling a close family friend and Doctor about this than he would his boss Joe Paterno or two relative strangers - AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz.
Does it seem more likely that Sandusky and the boy were in the left side of the shower room? That would be where Sandusky would be most protected from a chance visit to the locker room giving him the best chance to disengage from any contact. This also seems to fit with the Dranov description of a boy's head coming out of the shower room and an arm dragging him back inside.
We do not dispute that Jerry Sandusky was in this shower room with a boy that night. They were both naked. But what Mike saw in any 1 or 2 second glance or glances is clearly in dispute. We suggest, based on the trial testimony of Victim 4 (Brett Swisher Houtz) that it is likely the sounds were Sandusky and the boy slap boxing. Houtz stated that Sandusky would start a soap battle that would escalate to slap boxing, then wrestling where Sandusky would push him around and eventually wrestle him to the floor. It makes sense that if McQueary did see Sandusky pinning the child to the wall, it was part of the early going of the wrestling "match."
We are the only site that has provided pictures of the locker room that Mike McQueary visited for 45 seconds that February night in 2001. The stool pointed to below is in front of Mike's locker. The view through the mirror into the shower is the view he indicates he had from that locker.
Mike heard the 3 "rhythmic and sexual" slapping sounds as he entered the first set of doors to the locker room -- approximately 50 feet away from the door to the shower room. As he entered the shower room, he no longer heard the slapping sounds. Mike says he first went to his locker to the right of his entrance turning away from the showers. He claims he glanced over his right shoulder and saw the view in the right hand picture above.
Now let's add what Mike said under oath in the Perjury Preliminary hearing testimony
This testimony is of interest in our investigation:
To recreate Mike's story we would have to add water from more than one shower head in that rather small shower area, most likely some steam and restrict our views to 2 seconds or less.
1) that he only glanced for a second or two.
2) that "I wasn't even sure what I was seeing"
3) that his mental note of the slapping made him visualize a sex act.
This seems very understandable. Mike walks into a locker room late in the evening expecting it to be empty. Hears some "skin on skin" sounds he thinks are sexual. He is visualizing a sex act prior to glancing - a sex act between two adults. He glances through a mirror into narrow slot of the shower room area with the water running, most likely some steam involved, and he isn't sure what he is seeing. A boy's head comes out followed by Sandusky.
Now lets look at his under oath description of Sandusky and the boy.
Sandusky is 6'1" tall and weighs over 200 lbs. A 10 year old boy at the height Mike describes would weigh about 70 to 80 lbs. The image at the right is a child who's head comes to the adult's pectoral muscle or his chest
Mike has to get this description from this view through the mirror from his locker
Now if we take this height comparison and match it with this testimony with the boy standing upright feet on the floor.
When I read this testimony under oath and look at the picture of the view into that shower through the mirror it raises so many questions:
1) If Sandusky is behind a child of this size under the right hand shower head how does Mike see the boy's hands? The wall cannot be seen under that shower in that reflection.
2) Given Sandusky's size I can see that Mike could see his backside but how does he see the boy at all in that first glance through the mirror?
3) If the boy is that height standing upright with his feet on the floor how can a man be sodomizing that boy?
4) If he were sodomizing the boy how does the boy refrain from crying out in pain? How can he show no fear, distress or pain?
These questions haunt me when I think about what happened to Joe's reputation and PSU. Do I believe Mike went into that locker room and came away knowing that both Jerry Sandusky and a 10 year old boy were in that shower room? YES I think he heard those sounds - thought some adults were having sex - and was shocked to see Jerry and the boy so he lept to the conclusion that Sandusky was having sex with the boy.
But how did Mike know that boy was not a foster grandchild of Jerry Sandusky's. How does he know he's not a child who was in Jerry's care? How could he give so much testimony about these glances and completely change his testimony about what he did to stop IT?
This cinches it for me. Here is what Mike said in front of the Grand Jury under oath.
In this version Mike indicates he got the glance through the mirror and then:
1) He opened his locker as fast as he could. Put shoes in locker and walked out directly as fast as he could.
2) I just didn't do anything to stop it.
So between the time he told Dr Dranov his story and the time he told the Grand Jury this story we have whatever he might have said to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz.
Does anyone believe he told them he witnessed a boy being subjected to anal intercourse?
We know he used 4 words in a 10 minute talk with Joe "a sexual nature" and "fondling".
We know he saw no fondling. Could he have said "Joe I heard sounds of a sexual nature"? Given the doubts raised by these inconsistencies we can certainly understand why perjury changes against Curley and Schultz appear to be on less than solid ground.
I have a difficult time with Mike's credibility. Am I being unfair?
In 2010 before the Grand Jury he just didn't do anything to stop it, but in Dec of 2011 he made certain it stopped, he added a second and third glance at the boy and Sandusky and what he saw became "extremely sexual". What changed?
In the Dranov version:
A boys head peeks out of the shower, an arm drags the boy back in and then Jerry Sandusky comes walking out. Mike - thinking it's two adults having sex can't wrap his head around those sounds and a boy with Sandusky. He exits in a hurry and phones home.
In his Perjury Hearing testimony:
Is Mike correct in saying he did not know what he was seeing? That he was convinced upon entering the locker room that he was hearing sexual sounds - the 3 slapping sounds -and expected 2 adults were having sex? And when he saw a boy peek out of the showers and then saw Sandusky he was shocked and upset. Not because he observed any anal intercourse but because he suspected it was anal intercourse from the sounds?
At the very least his accounts to Dr. Dranov and his statements under oath in the Perjury Hearing are clear evidence of reasonable doubt as to what he saw. And finally Mike's statements to the Grand Jury are clear and unambiguous. He had one glance in that mirror, he opened his locker as fast as he could, he put his shoes in the locker and left directly and he just did not do anything to stop it. These are Mikes's words. Mike's testimony.
So I leave it to you. Please offer your alternative view of this situation in the comments or email it to me and later this week I will prepare a post with your argument and allow our readers to judge it for themselves without comment. email firstname.lastname@example.org
Please participate in our poll at the bottom of the page.
And not for us - but for the person who provided the pictures - please donate by hitting the red button in the upper right. - Your donation will be used to help fund the lawsuit against the NCAA A lawsuit on behalf of former players & coaches, the Paterno Family, season ticket holders, alumni, students, faculty and State College businesses damaged by the NCAA sanctions will be filed soon. This money is going to that purpose.
Vote LIKE IT below if you think Attorney General was INCORRECT - stating that Mike saw anal intercourse and told that to Joe, Tim and Gary
Vote HATE it if you think Mike did see anal intercourse and told that to Joe Tim & Gary = AG CORRECT
LIKE IT - AG INCORRECT HATE IT - AG CORRECT.