Monday, October 8

INTERACTIVE - PARTICIPATORY BLOGGING with PICTURES.

You be the Jury - Here is my case with an opportunity for you to present yours. 
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. 

Here is some of what we know about what Mike McQueary has said:
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. 

McQueary freely admits
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 aurabass4psu@yahoo.com
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. 

39 comments:

  1. Barry,

    I posted a vote on your survey saying I believe the testimony of Dr. Dranov. Like you, I have felt that Sandusky was grooming this child but don't know for sure; sadly, it seems to fit the things I have learned about pedophilia in the past year. While I have no doubt Sandusky is a criminal in this matter, and eagerly await his sentencing this week, I feel there are many more, not in the PSU athletic department, who have actively worked to shift blame from where it belongs to others that are much more notable and/or famous. The fact that our reputation as a university and a football program have been burned seem to either have no bearing on the cover up or were the desired outcome.

    I further believe that, while responsibility for the sex crimes falls upon Sandusky, this was covered up even before McQuery walked into that locker room in 2001. I understand that a psychological profile was withheld from the case in 98, and would like to know why. I believe Corbut was a key player in not investigation properly so that he could advance his political career. I believe the BoT's know more than they have let on but felt it was no big deal and their rush to cover their butts has made it far, far worse. Finally, I also feel that the Freeh Report is full of errors and faulty inferences and the BoT's made a huge mistake in allowing this clown to lead an investigation. (Had the key players been interviewed, it might have some worth.)

    I come to these conclusions based on information you have provided here, as well as my reading of other folks that I have found through links on your site. (FramingPaterno and John Ziegler, just to name a few) I want to thank you for all of your efforts in trying to get some light on these issues, I know it is not easy!

    For the Glory,
    Joe Hardner

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Mike McQueary wore blinders and earplugs and Jerry did not sodomize that boy, just a few thousand others.

      Delete
    2. Joe, I'm a physician in State College. One of my pediatric patients has been involved recently in an alleged child-molestation case. At no point in this case have the police or Children and Youth Services sought copies of my medical records for this kid.

      The report filed in 1998 by Dr. Chambers which (correctly) identified Sandusky's treatment of the victim she was seeing was that of the child's own psychologist. He was a Second Mile kid. Most of these kids have problems. Many, if not most of them are in counseling on an ongoing basis with local psychologists.

      Like yourself, I was suspicious about the circumstances under which Dr. Chambers' report was not taken more seriously by the local prosecutors. I read a commentary by the PA DPW caseworker who was working with a police detective on the 1998 case. He said something to the effect of, "If I had known the contents of Dr. Chambers' report, I never would have closed the file on that case." It seems that the only psychological opinion the investigators of the 1998 case had access to was the "official" DPW forensic psych report filed by Dr. Seasock, who was doing forensic psychological evals for DPW in 1998.

      Incidentally, Seasock had no where near the credentials that Chambers has; but that's what you get when you pay garbage for professional services, which states tend to do..... I'm very serious on that last comment.....

      If I was an investigator, I'd want all the information that was available out there on the people I was investigating. As my recent experience has taught me, that information isn't sought in compiling an initial database for the investigation to work from. I'd want medical records and mental health records on the case which had been developed by private providers. The state and the local investigative entities don't seem inclined to seek that stuff out. It's almost as if they think it will somehow taint the investigation. Maybe it is thought better in investigative circles to "start from scratch" and to develop your own database.

      So, I don't think that Dr. Chambers report was "witheld" purposefully in order to skew the investigation. I think it was "excluded" as a matter of standard operating procedure - and the SOP needs to be changed.

      Delete
    3. RBM,

      Thanks for your insight. I hope you are right that this was simply a procedural error rather than intentional. I read the same report you mentioned, and was concerned that the necessary information was not passed along.

      Delete
    4. What is not being widely reported is that DPW invesigator Lauro talked with BOTH the boy's mother AND Dr. Chambers after the 1998 incident. Dr. Chambers said she was happy with the way the investigation was being handled after talking to Lauro and Schreffler. And Lauro claims he had no knowledge of the report Dr. Chambers issued? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't Dr. Chambers say "by the way, I did write up an extensive report on this incident that you should look at". She even writes a letter to Detective Schreffler in which she gives him her notes from the interview with the boy and his mother from 1998. We know Schreffler and Lauro were working together. Wouldn't Schreffler say "Hey, Dr. Chambers gave me her notes from her interview of the boy. These may be helpful".

      And Freeh wants us to believe that a football coach and administrators are responsible for DPW not doing their job? BS

      Delete
  2. I believe Dr. Dranov. The man didn't pull that story out of his hat, and being a family friend he'd certainly have no reason to create a big lie. Rest assured that is the story they heard from Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. McQ's story certainly has a lot of problems. Even the jury at Sandusky's trial thought so, as there was no conviction on that particular charge. One might be inclined to think that the McQ story discrepancies are not a big deal because the overwhelming body of evidence clearly shows Sandusky to be a pedophile. In one sense that is true, but in another it is not. After all, it is McQ's story that has sullied the reputation on Penn State and Joe Paterno.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How much can be seen and remembered (esp years later) body movement in one to two seconds? And how much body movement can even occur in one to two seconds. MM should not be viewed as having reliable testimony on much of what occured based on the varying recollections.

    ReplyDelete
  5. McQ obviously saw something in the shower. He had every right to be suspicious. Reporting it to hsi father & Dr. Dranov, as well as to JoePa, etc was the right thing to do. What he told JoePa, Schultz, Curley, Dranov, etc is a matter of speculation, but it seems from McQ's own testimony that he did not see a rape. Whatever it was that he saw, it didn't seem to affect his conscience enough to prevent him from helping Sandusky at 2nd Mile fundraisers. 10 or so years later, McQ's story changes. Now he thinks he saw a rape. Makes you wonder if McQ was pressured to add that to his story. The question I have is "Who would benefit by having the rape stuff added to the story"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Governor Corbett!! Without McQueary, no charges would've been brought against Curley and Schultz. Without charges brought against Curley and Schultz, Penn State wouldn't have been the focus and PA government agencies, the Attorney General's office and TSM take the heat.

      Delete
  6. Who would benefit? I would think that the DA who is now trying to get a case to go to trial and only has speculation and circumstantial evidence as testimony would benefit. I am not saying that they coached McQ in what too say, but I am not ruling it out as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are in an area that is very concerning and each new revelation adds more concern. It makes no sense that if McQ was so traumatized that he could not provide details of what he SAW to his father and Dr Dranove he by the next day and during the next couple of weeks was able to give full details to JoePA, etal. Yet in 9 years he never got around to giving Dr Dranov who he went to for help within 30 minutes of the incident those same details? Not believeable. If McQ had provided those details to Dr Dranove you would expect the prosecution to bring that out in the Dr Dranov testimony and corroborate McQ testimony rather than conflict with it.

      That leads to the question of what if any coaching/sweating by investigators lead to McQ exagerrating his account to what he concluded had happened rather than what he actually saw and thus help the prosection.

      That leads to what did the prosecution know before having him testiy. Did they put on what they knew to be false tesimony (I Hope not) but each new revelation leads to more and more questions.

      Even more concerning is the telephone call from Victim #2 to Sandusky. Who was looking for him. It only makes sense that it was the prosecution. Did they get in touch with him? Did he give a victim statement that was in conflict with the already released prosecution version? Did they withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense? Does the defense know the answers and is Amendola holding it as an ace in the hole for an appeal?

      This is getting truly concerning and all brought on by politicans, the media, the BOT, and the Freeh report each out for their own interests and instead creating a backlash that may in the end jeopardize the criminal case. If this keeps playing out as they have forced it to go we are in for some huge and disturbing outcomes!!

      Delete
    2. Mike M.

      Speaking of politicians and the BOT. I'd like to see a timeline of Corbutt, Surma, Kelly and even Noonan since 1998. Noonan was so vocal at the initial AG press conference. What was his involvement on the investigative timeline.I think some big revelations lay behind the scene's linking these individuals and probably 95 percent of the damage done to Joe and PSU. The media are just feeding franzy sharks for the moment. Freeh...well what can one say about that travesty!

      Delete
    3. Corbett and Noonan as his Chief investigators showed remarkable lack of Leadership and recognition of Law enforcement Command and Control responsibilities in the investigation (others might say remarkable recognition of the negative impact on a gubenatorial bid if it came out and fell apart prior to the election.)

      In any case, they only assigned one investigator while they BOTH were in leadership of the AG office and decided that no monitoring of who they proclaimed to be a dangerous child predator for over a year was an appropirate investigative tactic? Their explanation is that Sandusky knew that law enforcement was interested in him. Imagine, letting a serial murderer on the street un-monitored for over a year because he knew we were interested in him? I guess the AG office forgot that law enforcement's first priority is to PROTECT above all else. In todays world of electronic everything they did not even monitor his cell phone GPS while they carefully had one investigator put a case together(LOL if not so irresponsible). Watch the first interview Noonan did for CBS Morning Show and how defensive he got when asked why he let Sandusky on the street for so long when he called him a monster. By the next interview he (I'm sure after a strategy session) he starts to talk about the moral responsibility of a coach and giving the media the story they wanted and taking the heat off himself and Corbett. ESPN and the rest got the story that sells.

      They may very well have needed the time to develop a better case, but I can not find a case anywhere in which law enforcement identified a serial offender and left him/her walk the streets for over a year without at least some sort of monitoring while the case was built.

      Comes back to incrediable lack of Leadership or incrediable astute politics, that may well have back fired as the details come out.

      Delete
  7. Thanks to everyone who is participating with their comments and votes in the Poll. We are paying attention and will be following up

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is there any chance at all that the Government offers Curley and Shultz some kind of deal so none of this is ever brought up again?

    It is obvious that old Jerry was a sick individual. Tomorrow he will be told that he will never be a free man again, and that is what he deserves. But we are talking about the PSU side of things now and that is where this all gets very interesting.

    I hope Curley and Shultz never make a deal and let all of this be brought to the public at their trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you mutdog12 but I would be very surprised if Schultz/Curley cut a deal given the fact that the star witness is likely to fall apart under cross examination. Three testimonies....3 different stories. I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that perjury is VERY difficult to prove and in this case, they don't even have a good witness to begin with.

      Delete
    2. don't be surprised if the government just dismisses the case using the loss of JoePa as an out. Too many downsides to McQ testifying now that more and more credibility issues come out and the chance that it could provide material or testimony to add to a Sandusky appeal. The indictments muzzeled them from contradicting McQ at trial and has served it's purpose. what they knew is so murky only Louie FREEH would find it crystal clear. Like he did with Richard Jewel.

      Delete
    3. Mike M

      Iwas working security at the 96 Olympics when the bomb was detonated downtown.

      Delete
  9. testimony conflicts
    -if the "boy" was standing with his hands against the wall
    a) how could he be seen at all
    b) how would it be obvious it was a boy
    -staying inside the building to make a phone call. Brain research has proven when faced w/a horrific image the brain will respond with either 'fight or flight'.
    -Dr D testimony-if the AG is to believe MM's testimony then Dr D should have his medical license revoked-as a mandated reporter he is required by law to file a report w/in 24 hours with the police alerting them to an abusive situation that has been presented to him. For that matter Mike M as a certified coach in the state of PA is also a mandated reporter-Mike M would have lost any coaching certification having been witness to a crime against a minor but did not report to authorities w/in the 24 hr period-which would make his whistleblowers lawsuit moot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While I appreciate the work and efforts you have made into this case, one main constant remains. Sandusky was known to have performed inappropriate acts with young boys at least twice that Paterno, Curley, and Schultz knew about. So why in the world was he allowed to be on campus, at football practices and games (with boys), at bowl games, in the varsity box, and in the Lasch building? Do I think the 3 men conspired to cover up, no...but they should have never let that man around again, ever. They should have notified the other coaches, security, Lasch staff, etc that if he was seen around, especially with a kid(s), then he was to be reported and dealt with. That's the problem and that's why Paterno's/Penn State's reputations are tarnished. They could have stopped him a long time before 2011.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, you are parroting the national media (ESPN) narrative. What's at contention hear, is just how could Joe or Curley know any details with respect to the '98 investigation? Law enforcement is restricted from releasing details about such investigations except to other law enforcement personnel involved in said investigation. It would have been a crime to release details of the investigation to Joe or Curley.

      Fast forward to 2001. The same legal restrictions apply. Jerry is no longer Joe's employee. Jerry is an employee of the 2nd Mile. The 2nd Mile has psychologists with expertise to understand "grooming" behavior of a pedophile. Schultz notifies the ED of the 2nd mile in the 2001 incident. Why doe the 2nd mile ignore these communications?

      I support this website b/c these are serious questions that need to be answered. The truth needs to be revealed. The destruction of Penn State, Penn State Football and Joe's reputation are all at the heart of the media narrative, the failure of the BoT to protect PSU, the greatly flawed Freeh report and the "characters" both political and powers of industry who stand to gain from said narrative.

      I want to know who the "supervisor" in Harrisburg was who green lighted the "psychological" report on Jerry. Who at the time was not a state certified Psychologist.

      I want to know the extent to which CoreButt covered this up for political gain, b/c he was receiving millions of campaign contribution from the 2nd Mile and powerful people directly affiliated with the 2nd Mile.

      'nuff said for now.

      Delete
    2. Ken- you are promoting the Freeh parallel universe theory, in which PSU, as a stand alone universe, was to treat JS as a sex offender, while he was free to roam the rest of the earth(especially 2M) unfettered, with easy access to children, as a reputable man about town. Problem is there is only one universe and why should PSU have to treat/view him any differently than the rest of the world.

      Delete
    3. Ken - If you want to make such a preposterous charge "Sandusky was known to have performed inappropriate acts with young boys at least twice that Paterno, Curley, and Schultz knew about it" You need to offer some proof of that.

      On this weblog you will find no less that a dozen stories about 1998 that show that statement to be a bald faced lie.
      So how about it Ken? Would you please supply your proof of this defamation of Joe? He deserves proof from you if you are an honorable person.

      Delete
    4. And Ken - if you actually read this story - can you tell us how we failed to prove that McQueary is not to be believed?

      Delete
  11. I'm not sure where I read this, but does anyone have factual evidence that the AG had evidence that McQ was illegally texting groin pics to a female? I've heard that the AG used this as leverage to get McQ's testimony to put Sandusky away.

    I've also read or heard that Mr. & Mrs. McQ are splitzky. Could this be a result of the sexual texting?

    What is Mr. McQ's current marital status?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard that story from 3 or 4 sources now.
      Can anyone run that down?
      Does anyone have the images sent by the red head?

      Delete
  12. Finally! Kathleen Kane, candidate for PA Attorney General, has indicated that she will investigate the previous AGs investigation of Jerry Sandusky. So for those looking for a scinta of truth, might want to consider voting for Kane for AG. I know I will!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Barry,

    Let's not forget that McQueary DENIED telling Dr. Dranov he saw a boy peek his head around the corner and Jerry's arm pulling him back. Dr. Dranov DID testify that Mike told him EXACTLT that:

    From the Sandusky Tril Transcript:
    Q. DID YOU TELL ANYONE THAT YOU SAW A YOUNG BOY'S HEAD LOOK OUT OF THE SHOWER AND JERRY SANDUSKY'S ARM REACH AROUND AND PULL THE BOY BACK IN THE SHOWER?

    A. NO WAY

    If you read pages 11-12 from the transcript, Dr. Dranov CLEARLY states Mike told him just that. Who's lying here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I guess in McQ world everyone but him? Earlier in his testimony he profused to respect DR Dranov as a smart and close friend who just did not hear McQ correctly. I go back to that during the 9 years between the incident and the GJ testimony, McQ never had any conversation that would clarify for Dr Dranov what he was told because McQ just never spoke about it because it was so terrible, yet he is absoultely sure he told the DR the details immediately afterwards when he was soo shaken up. I must have missed it because I can not find any transcript of what McQ's father said about what he and Dr Dranov were told?

      Delete
    2. Answered my own question on John McQ, per his testimony in the perjury hearing. He is just as murky as Mike McQ. He is clear that Mike was upset over what observed, heard, but not as to what it actually was, and that Mike concluded what was happening but did not see it happening. He confirms follow up conversations over time since the event and even meetings with Shulz and Dr Dranov yet never clarified the observations that Mike McQ testified to at trial. So not even his father can corroborate his trial testimony. But no mistake he saw/heard something that was Wrong.

      Delete
  14. Joe, I'm a physician in State College. One of my pediatric patients has been involved recently in an alleged child-molestation case. At no point in this case have the police or Children and Youth Services sought copies of my medical records for this kid.

    The report filed in 1998 by Dr. Chambers which (correctly) identified Sandusky's treatment of the victim she was seeing was that of the child's own psychologist. He was a Second Mile kid. Most of these kids have problems. Many, if not most of them are in counseling on an ongoing basis with local psychologists.

    Like yourself, I was suspicious about the circumstances under which Dr. Chambers' report was not taken more seriously by the local prosecutors. I read a commentary by the PA DPW caseworker who was working with a police detective on the 1998 case. He said something to the effect of, "If I had known the contents of Dr. Chambers' report, I never would have closed the file on that case." It seems that the only psychological opinion the investigators of the 1998 case had access to was the "official" DPW forensic psych report filed by Dr. Seasock, who was doing forensic psychological evals for DPW in 1998.

    Incidentally, Seasock had no where near the credentials that Chambers has; but that's what you get when you pay garbage for professional services, which states tend to do..... I'm very serious on that last comment.....

    If I was an investigator, I'd want all the information that was available out there on the people I was investigating. As my recent experience has taught me, that information isn't sought in compiling an initial database for the investigation to work from. I'd want medical records and mental health records on the case which had been developed by private providers. The state and the local investigative entities don't seem inclined to seek that stuff out. It's almost as if they think it will somehow taint the investigation. Maybe it is thought better in investigative circles to "start from scratch" and to develop your own database.

    So, I don't think that Dr. Chambers report was "witheld" purposefully in order to skew the investigation. I think it was "excluded" as a matter of standard operating procedure - and the SOP needs to be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Two words -- anatomically impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Typical, typical, typical.

    It gets old after a while bud.

    People who still support JoePa and Penn State are not downplaying child abuse of anything even close to that. They are supporting the value this country was founded on....Due Process. They refuse to sit around and let a screwed up BOT make decisions that are completley wrong and basically unfounded.

    Here is what I say to everyone who has the same thoughts as you.....I hope if you are ever in any situation that requires an investigation that you get the same due process that you apparently want in this case.

    Thus far only 1 person has gotten due process and he will rot in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I appreciate all the effort you all are putting in to trying to uncover the truth. I, like you, have so many questions about the entire scandal because it just doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to keep an open mind and not assume I know anything about the guilt or innocence of anyone involved until their trial, but the "library donating, modest home living, Joe we know" doesn't fit the narrative of pedophile enabling cover-up mastermind. I believe trying to reconcile those extremes is what makes Penn Staters appear as Joe apologists, when all we really want is the truth. Anyway, can you help me answer a couple questions?

    Why was Freeh's group selected to be the investigator? Given his history, no matter what side of the PSU is the root of all evil crowd you sit on, Freeh's group was going to be discredited. More succinctly, if the Report had completely exonerated PSU's administrators, the PSU detractors would be using many of the same arguments against Freeh presented on this site to say something to the effect of "PSU bought their innocence". So that Report from the very beginning was a waste of PSU $$ and frankly I'd like our $6.5 million back.

    I've thought the 2000 janitor incident was at "old Lasch" which would be different from 2001 incident and the facility shown in the pictures in recent posts, correct? I've seen in comment sections on other sites that Petrovsky (sp?) could be charged with perjury based on the pictures of the locker room. So was the 2000 incident at the facility shown in the pictures or not? If not can you also try to find pictures of the facility?

    I have many more questions but that's all my little pea brain can wrap my mind around on a Friday afternoon. Again thanks for all your effort!

    Just as an aside, what bothers me most about statements from Mark Emmert and others about our culture is that it implicates me directly as part of the problem. I'm a PSU alum, avid football fan, and even work for PSU. If I don't fit the description of someone of our culture, who does? So to think that I would want the administrators of my Alma Mater, favorite football team, & place of employment to cover-up the actions of a pedophile is insane. I still believe in "Success with Honor" as when I was a kid growing up in Jersey, that's what drew me here. No sanction can take that away from me.

    Thanks,
    Jason

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason;

      From what I've read it appears that Governor Corbett recommeded Judge Freeh to the BOT committee charged with finding out what went wrong and how to correct it. (Some have said that Corbett and Freeh know each either from their US DOJ days?)

      And yes it is hard to believe that someone who was so adamant, almost obnoxious in challenging others and himself to do the right thing, was secretly doing the wrong thing.

      Delete
    2. One more question came up last night and that was were Dr. Dranov and McQuery Sr. mandated reporters in February of 2001?

      I found a link with the current PA code (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter42/s42.42.html) and it shows the code was amended in December 2001 but I can't find the original 1996 code. I feel this is important to clear up as one line of thinking is that Mike could not have told his father and Dranov about what he saw because they were mandated reporters. As Penn Staters we expect the media to report factual and unbiased information but we also need to hold ourselves to that same standard when looking for the truth.

      Delete
  18. Mike,

    I appreciate your input but I've also read places that board member Ken (CEO of Merck) had a hand in selecting the Freeh group. I'd really like this question clearly defined, knowing that for people like you and I, it's probably not possible, unless you have authority I do not know about, but I guess I want the best available evidence.

    Barry, Ray, et al, do you have other evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin Slaten read a report on his show saying that Corbett was the man who recommended Freeh. I don't think it really matters if the voice that said the words "lets hire Freeh" was Corbett, Frazier, Surma, Peetz Lubert or any of the Corbett appointees.

      Corbett, Surma, Peetz Frasier et all pretty much march in lock step and likely decide pre meeting how to promote their common agenda.

      Delete