Monday, October 31

Analysis: Old Main's Costly Charade Continues

PSU's attorneys could have easily beat McQueary's misrepresentation and claim by using the plaintiff's own words against him -- but instead chose to protect the false narrative of a cover up by the PSU 3

By
Ray Blehar

While some new information was revealed at the McQueary v. Penn State University civil trial, the bottom line is that at the conclusion of the trial the public knows far more about what Mike McQueary did NOT say to PSU officials than what he actually said.

But that came about before the McQueary trial was held.  

PSU legal representative Nancy Conrad could have defeated McQueary's misrepresentation claim by first pointing out what McQueary did not say, then following that up by citing the testimony of what Mike did NOT do after making his report to PSU officials.

What McQueary Didn't Say
According to the courtroom observers I contacted, McQueary was not grilled about his previous testimony that would have revealed he never told former PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz anything that would have required them to do anything more than ban Jerry Sandusky from using the workout facilities with participants of The Second Mile.  

Statements from McQueary's December 16, 2011 testimony follow:

"I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one." (p. 72)

"I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy that I could not see his hands..." (p. 75)

"I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on a boy's genitals.." (p. 75)

"I would not have used the words anal intercourse."  (p. 81)

"I think it's clear I can't remember the words I used." (p. 102)

To last statement alone is rather important considering that in the case of causing someone to act -- and for individuals to be charged with perjury for their interpretation of what was said -- that the words used are of the utmost importance.  

PSU's legal team could have piled on a similar statement about Mike's faulty memory of what he said in 2001 from his July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing testimony.

"..there's no way I could tell you, one hundred percent, the actual words that I used." (p. 25)

The fact that Mike couldn't remember the words he used should have made this case moot -- and it goes back to the reason why there are statutes of limitations on many offenses.  People simply can't be held to reliably testify to things that happened many years ago. 

Again, words matter and it was clear Mike didn't recall using any explicit terms or the specific language in his conversations with Curley and Schultz.

McQueary Satisfied With Curley's Decision
McQueary's original legal claim stated he did not go to the police in 2001 (or thereafter) because he was misled by Curley and Schultz that an investigation had taken place and the actions that he was not aware of the actions taken.  





PSU's legal team would have only needed to cite Mike's testimony that he was fine with the decision made in 2001 to debunk this frivolous claim.

Here is Mike's testimony from page 87 of the December 16, 2011 preliminary hearing stating that he was satisfied with Curley's action to contact The Second Mile.



Finally, Conrad and company could have quoted from page 64 of Mike's July 2013 preliminary hearing testimony to convince the jury that his misfortunes were of his own making.










Why PSU Threw the Case

PSU's legal team intentionally failed to emphasize those  points because doing so would have undermined the very costly false narrative that the University used to remove former President Graham Spanier and the late Joe Paterno and that it has stood behind since November 2011.  

The direct cost of defending the narrative has cost PSU approximately $165 million including:

$8.5 million paid to Louis Freeh for his sham investigation;
$60 million paid out to the state government based on the sham process used by the NCAA to penalize PSU athletics;
$93 million paid to various claimants in the sham settlements in the PMA insurance case; and,
$6.1 million paid to McQueary for its insufficient defense of the Misrepresentation claim. 

As the evidence all along has shown, PSU's decisions in the Sandusky scandal were not made out of panic nor were they due to incompetency.  These were intentional decisions to assist the Office of Attorney General (OAG) in poisoning the jury pool or otherwise convict PSU officials in the court of public opinion.

47 comments:

  1. I agree Penn State's defense seemed very poor. I suspect the judge wouldn't allow them to raise certain issues, such as McQueary's gambling addiction and McQueary's telling his players that he was sexually abused as a boy.

    I was also very surprised that Penn State did not raise the issue of McQueary failing to mitigate his damages in the misrepresentation claim. Mitigation of damages is considered a plaintiff's duty in a misrepresentation case.

    McQueary had many opportunities to mitigate damages by disagreeing with Curley's sanctions against Sandusky in 2001, by reporting to the actual police in 2001 when he was dissatisfied by Curley's response, by holding a press conference in 2011 to point out that the grand jury presentment "twisted" his testimony and by moving far out of State College in 2012 where he would have a better chance to find a sales job. McQueary also quashed his chances at employment when he rushed to sue Penn State in Oct. 2012, less than 4 months after his Penn State job ended.

    Even so, I think it was a runaway jury on the defamation claim. They didn't make their decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. McQueary presented no evidence that Spanier's statement ruined his reputation or cost him jobs. The 3 head coaches testified that McQueary didn't get jobs for other reasons. McQueary's friends testified they didn't even think Spanier's statement referred to McQueary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

      I was told that the Judge barred the PSU legal team from bringing up McQueary's character issues.

      The mitigation issue was also apparently missed by the legal team -- however, the PSU approach as I understood it was to bring forth witnesses to rebut the notion that Mike had reported a crime to PSU officials.

      I would say there was a runaway jury on both counts based on a reasonable person's interpretation of the preponderance of evidence.
      That said, a jury is given the latitude to believe all, some, or none of testimony provided by the witnesses.

      Based on the verdict, they chose not to believe Courtney, Dranov, and Spanier's version of what Mike reported in 2001 re: the misrepresentation claim. Again, that is why the PSU legal team erred in not attacking the credibility of the witness by using his own words against him.




      Delete
    2. Ray, neither Courtney nor Spanier ever talked to McQueary regarding this. Dranov has testified publicly twice; both times he said that McQueary was too upset to give him an answer. .

      Delete
    3. JJ - That's not true about Dr. Dranov, and you know it because you just recently provided the link to the transcript of his Sandusky trial testimony.

      Dranov testified both times publicly, and at the grand jury, that McQueary told him he saw a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and then Sandusky exit the shower a bit later.

      Dranov also testified at the Sandusky trial that when he asked Mike for more details about what he saw, Mike kept going back to the sexual sounds he heard through the door.

      Ganim reported that "Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source."

      Sandusky's attorney confirmed that when he asked Dranov at the Sandusky trial, "But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?"

      Delete
  2. Thanks, Ray Blehar, for pulling together the McQ's statements I have read and remembered. The reason for the defense to omit using these statements from testimony in other situations is beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lialexgma,
      Thanks for reading and for the kind words.

      We've lived through five years of "beyond belief" when it comes to how PSU handled the Sandusky case. As more evidence is revealed, the picture of a "railroading" of PSU officials becomes clearer and clearer.

      Delete
  3. Ray - Was Nancy Conrad hired by Penn State or Penn State's insurance company (AIG)?

    PennLive reported that AIG "had taken charge of the defense" and decided to go to trial when settlement talks broke down in Sept.

    PennLive quoted an unnamed source at Penn State as saying "We had to do whatever they [AIG] told us."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      The legal filings state the Conrad is the counsel for the defendant.

      I wouldn't count on Penn Live account considering Thompson is the reporter and he is relying on an unnamed source.

      Delete
  4. Dear Ray,
    Two years ago you wrote an http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/09/analysis-aia-completed-in-2012-mitchell.html#comment-form George Mitchell 'The Maytag Man's" collection of Free Money in Happy Valley. Your response to Robert Campbell comment --->> Bob,
    You hit the nail on the head...nothing for Mitchell to do and a giant waste of money.

    ??? 8 million plus added to your list

    Chuck O'Connor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck,
      You are correct. Maytag Man George Mitchell and DLA Piper consulting was paid hansomely for their part in this charade to make PSU officials look guilty -- and provide positive publicity for the scoundrels who ruined PSU's reputation.

      Thanks for the comment!

      Delete
  5. I'm hopeful the upcoming trials will hit on all of these topics you mention. The next couple months make or break the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So what is left for the people of Pennsylvania? Our federal government can't or won't stop the malicious abuse of innocent citizens by the judicial system here. As in the Kane and McQueary cases, juries are being intimidated and/or influenced to reach whatever verdict the corrupt courts desire. And innocent people are being framed and convicted within the courts like there is no justice system at all.

    What has been done to Attorney General Kane is a grotesque miscarriage of justice. But the cruelty and inhumanity of it all was allowed to proceed. She and her children should not be subjected to this kind of pain and suffering if she is innocent. And at the very least, her so-called perjury should not warrant handcuffs and prison. It's just a sickening display of sadistic and corrupt power. Where is the remedy for this? Is there no common decency and integrity left in the federal government? Why won't they stop it?

    The same for President Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. These men have had their lives stolen from them for almost 5 years! They have been denied the basic American right to a speedy trial which would have proved their innocence a long time ago! What or who is allowing this in this country? Is it rule 1.6 that Terance Healy insists is the problem? Well if it is, it's an improperly enacted rule that the ABA has given to the criminal courts. They seem to be allowed to falsely accuse and imprison any innocent person they choose. What kind of people would allow a bad and unethical law to override their conscience? To me it's just mind-boggling.

    Ray, I noticed you retweeted a Terance Healy tweet from his work2bedone.com blog. Does this mean you now agree with or see his research on this subject to be credible? Because as he insists, if this rule 1.6 is the root cause of all Pennsylvania's problems, then Governor Wolf has a moral obligation to stop it and protect the citizens from further damage, but he won't act.

    As it stands right now, it looks as though Terance Healy, a regular Joe Citizen, is the only one with any true American courage left. Where are our leaders that should be backing him up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truthseeker,
      The people of Pennsylvania are living under the risk of unfair prosecution/persecution if they should try to unearth the corruption in the state or fail to cooperate with corrupt AG officials. As I wrote in the piece on Bumsted's book, Keystone Corruption, either you become a cooperating witness or a defendant when the AG is involved.

      Schultz and Curley wouldn't cut a deal to lie about Spanier's role in the 2001 incident and now all 3 of them are defendants.

      It is almost certain that other witnesses beyond Cynthia Baldwin got deals to lie about what they saw, knew, or did related to the 2001 incident.

      Terance Healy is, as you say, an ordinary Joe who was wronged by the system. While I do not interpret Rule 1.6 in the same manner he does -- and I don't proclaim to be a legal expert -- he has pointed out many flaws in PA's criminal justice system that need to be fixed.

      The bottom line is that PA is so corrupt that no entity of the state government would ever dream of trying to clean it up. The Feds/FBI are seemingly the only hope, but I wouldn't count on them to intervene.

      Our only hope is a Hillsborough like independent panel that is chartered at the Federal level.

      Delete
  7. Maybe the trial transcripts will provide a better picture of the case the defense made in the McQueary trial but it seems like they missed numerous opportunities, not just the ones mentioned in this article.

    The defense should have called the lawyers for Curley and Schultz, whose statements of support were placed on the Penn State website on the same page as Spanier's allegedly defamatory statement.

    They could have questioned those lawyers about the perjury charge being dismissed (proving Spanier half right) and the reasons why the remaining failure to report charge is groundless, as Spanier said in his statement.

    The perjury charge was dismissed on other grounds without any consideration of McQueary's truthfulness. Most, if not all, of the motions to dismiss the failure to report charge also do not involve McQueary's truthfulness.

    They could have called the judge who talked about Curley and Schultz being charged just to remove them as defense witnesses for Sandusky.

    They could have called AG Kelly or the prosecutor who charged Curley and Schultz to ask why mandated reporters, Dr. Dranov and Jack Raykovitz, were not charged with failure to report.

    They could have called former Acting AG Bruce Castor who signed the motion arguing that Schultz was a "law enforcement official" in 2001. That means when Schultz was notified by McQueary, the clock started running on the 2 year statute of limitations for failure to report on Curley.

    They should have called former AG Tom Corbett who denigrated his own star witness, McQueary, on national TV by accusing him of a "moral failure."

    They should have called commentators who vilified, and even threatened, McQueary, such as the Bleacher Report's, Tom Loughrey. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/932165-mike-mcqueary-why-receivers-coach-deserves-jail-time


    Loughrey wrote the following about McQueary,


    "He could be considered an accessory to rape."

    "What he did was morally unacceptable ..."

    "He does not deserve to live his normal life."

    "McQueary is a coward."

    "If he feared for his job on that day, he should fear for more than that in the coming days."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      I agree that the transcripts will tell the full story and you have pointed out numerous instances in which PSU's defense team could have chipped away at the notion that PSU was to blame for McQueary's misfortune -- when it was clear that the AG's presentment and the ensuing media firestorm is what caused Mike most of the harm to his reputation.

      Of course, Mike didn't have to follow Eshbach's advice on staying silent -- unless, of course, he had cut a deal.

      Delete
  8. Until the fraudulent presentation and the janitor hoax are forcibly debunked, the image the OAG created about little boys being pinned against a wall will remain. The idea that Joe was told about a little boy being sodomized and looked the other way will remain. These two frauds were used to prejudice the case beyond belief, and were the vehicles used to drag PSU and the football program into the media whirlpool. The PSU attorney had an opportunity to take Eshbach to the woodshed over the fraudulent presentation. But that dog didn't bark, and we all know why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One can only hope that council for CS&S are smart enough to bring these up at trial.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, except Eshbach wasn't even in charge of the case when the presentment was written. Penn State should have called ex-AG Kelly and questioned her as to why her presentment defamed her star witness, McQueary.

      They should have asked why Kelly didn't make any statements in defense of her star witness when ex-AG and Governor Tom Corbett disparaged McQueary as a moral failure.

      They should have asked why Kelly never charged Dr. Dranov for failure to report and perjury. His testimony contradicted McQueary's, and he was the only one McQueary told who was clearly a mandated reporter under the law in 2001.

      Penn State should have called all 5 AG's who had their hands on the Sandusky case (Corbett, Kelly, Kane, Castor, Beemer) and asked them embarrassing questions on the stand.

      Delete
    3. Gregory,
      Thank you for your comments.

      It is more than coincidence that the two most inflammatory incidents involving the PSU locker rooms have no known victims nor do they have what anyone would consider reliable eye witnesses.

      You are correct that debunking these two incidents are key to refuting the false narrative against PSU.

      Delete
    4. Tim,
      The Moulton Report revealed that Eshbach was the person in charge of drafting the presentment and getting it approved.

      She was questioned about the presentment and claimed it was an accurate representation of what he said -- even though Mike said his words were twisted.

      She also said Mike was a solid witness and that he reported what he saw to Curley and Schultz in explicit terms.

      We are all familiar with the evidence. It appears that Ms. Eshbach was stretching the truth. We'll need to see the transcripts to determine whether she was offering an opinion or offering facts. If it was the latter, then those were material misstatements and perhaps commission of perjury.

      Delete
  9. Well Mike got a cool $7M and now nobody likes him. If you recall, he started out being vilified by the victimistas because of his lack of response to a child rape. They called him a coward. They eventually supported him, although reluctantly, since his testimony was needed to convict Sandusky. We'll call them his 'fake friends'.

    Here we are 5 years down the road and now he has shafted his PSU community and the only folks who felt reasonably sorry for him. Hey Mike, it's not like educating Pennsylvania's young adults is all that important. Just grab the money and play the victim. You won't have any friends but who needs friends when you're rich?

    I would never have thought he could've won this suit in a million years. It just goes to show how far our judicial system, not to mention basic American ethics, have fallen. The only way Mike can come close to redeeming himself is to donate that 'blood money' back to the university. The damage is already done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Philip,
      Thanks for your comment.

      I don't think Mike was getting much love from the PSU community or anyone else before the trial -- and that was of his own making.

      It is my opinion that Mike didn't see much of anything in the locker room in 2001 but changed his story in 2010 to help out the AG in their prosecution of Sandusky. When the presentment made him out to be a coward, then things went South for him.

      He should have come clean then. He didn't.

      Now he's $7M richer but doesn't have much of a life ahead of himself should he decide to stay in the United States. If Mike should decide to move to another country where he might not be recognized, he could probably have a much fuller life.

      I don't think donating money to the University is high on Mike's list right now.

      Delete
    2. According to both Schultz and Paterno, McQueary said he saw something at the time. Now, I doubt if he did that so that 10 years later he might have a chance to sue someone over a public statement that had yet to be written. .

      Delete
    3. JJ - Who implied that McQueary set the whole thing up in 2001 planned to sue in 2012?

      I agree with Ray
      "It is my opinion that Mike didn't see much of anything in the locker room in 2001 but changed his story in 2010 to help out the AG in their prosecution of Sandusky."

      I think what McQueary saw in 2001 was closer to D. Dranov's testimony of seeing a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and then Sandusky exit the shower a bit later. That story fit how everyone acted in 2001, McQueary included.

      Delete
    4. No one, however, that would be the logical conclusion of the claim that "Mike didn't see much of anything."

      If he didn't much of anything, why would he not be a "coward" for saying **I didn't see anything?**

      Delete
    5. JJ - Yours is a very implausible scenario that McQueary lied in 2001 to set up a defamation lawsuit in 2012.

      It's much more plausible that the police corrupted McQueary's memory in 2010 after they told him that Sandusky abused other boys. When McQueary heard that he might have thought, so that's what Sandusky was doing in 2001.

      It's easy to implant false memories as evidenced by all the false confessions that have resulted in wrongful convictions.

      The police and prosecutors probably duped McQueary into thinking he'd be considered a hero for testifying but then the prosecutors threw him under the bus in the grand jury presentment, and ex-Attorney General and then Governor Tom Corbett called McQueary a moral failure on national TV.

      Delete
  10. Mike did play professionally in Scotland for a bit so maybe he would be interested in living overseas. Red hair is much more common in Ireland and Scotland than in the USA so he wouldn't stand out as much.

    If I was Mike, I'd move out of the country and not respond if the Attorney General wanted any more testimony after the way the AG defamed him in the grand jury presentment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Timmy, that's not my theory. It seems to be Ray's theory.

    McQueary's story has been consistent, and the grand jury and two trial juries found it credible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McQueary's story has been anything but consistent. Ray's story above pointed out several big contradictions in McQueary's testimony.

      - He didn't have the year or month correct at the beginning.
      - He didn't remember the locker door slam until Dec. 2011. - He testified he didn't remember who else he told, then later remembered he told Bradley but Bradley didn't agree with what McQueary alleged as their conversation.
      - McQueary testified he thought Schultz was the police because he saw him at the student union when there was a black student protest there. Yet, that happened months after McQueary talked to Schultz in 2001.
      - McQueary didn't testify about Paterno telling him Old Main would scapegoat him until after Paterno was dead and couldn't refute it.
      - He didn't use the rocket science line until after his father used those words in his testimony.

      The grand jury that heard McQueary's testimony was not the one that voted to indict.

      The Sandusky jury didn't use beyond a reasonable doubt for the 2001 incident. An unidentified victim is reasonable doubt. Dranov contradicting McQueary is reasonable doubt. McQueary and everyone he told not thinking it was serious enough to phone the police is reasonable doubt.

      The McQueary lawsuit jury didn't decide on a preponderance of the evidence.

      Delete
  12. Timmy, I think McQueary said 2001 or 2002, and he remembered whjat he was watching.

    Schultz supervised the police, much like a mayor or manager in a local municipality.

    McQueary was asked about the last thing Paterno said to him.

    I have been using the rocket science line for decades; heck I saw parody of it on "The Simpsons."

    BTW: The US Department of Education just came out with the PSU report.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Attorney General is arguing that Schultz was a "law enforcement official" and, as such, a mandatory reporter of child abuse. Apparently, that is the only way they could find to make Schultz a mandatory reporter.

    I saw the Clery Act report. Over 90% of the fines had nothing to so with the Sandusky case but were technical violations in reporting between 2008 to 2011. If they scrutinized every university for 5 years, I bet they could find lots of technical violations. They just made an example out of Penn State.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Timmy, Schultz is NOT charged with failure to report. Only Spanier is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. JJ - Where is proof of that? Curley and Schultz were both charged with failure to report in Nov. 2011. I've never seen any report that those charges were dropped.

    The silly thing about the Attorney General saying that Schultz was a "law enforcement official" is that the other two can then claim it was properly reported in 2001, the 2 year statute of limitations started running then and it expired long before charges were brought in 2011.

    USA Today Headline says "Penn State fined $4.2 million for its response to Jerry Sandusky case." They reversed the numbers. Everyone else says $2.4 million. What great proofreading.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The docket shows it. Here is Spanier's:

    https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003615-2013

    You will find it on page 2, #6.

    Here is Schultz's docket:

    https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003616-2013

    You will note it is not listed.

    The statute of limitation question was resolved, because the failure to report was continuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ,
      There are four dockets for Schultz. 2 with original charges (one for Magisterial court and one for Common Pleas).

      The original 2011 docket for Perjury and Failure to Report
      Common Pleas: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0005164-2011

      Magisterial:
      https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-12303-CR-0000354-2011

      The next set of dockets, which I will not post, contain the additional charges that arose from the Conspiracy of Silence presentment.

      Delete
    2. The original charges against Curley and Shchultz, filed in 2011, were dropped in November of 2012. Curley and Schultz were then recharged, but neither was charged with the summary offense of failure to report. Spanier was also charged in 2012, and the failure to report charge was filed against him.

      It is an assumption on my part, but because Schultz and/or Curley did report to Spanier, the did report it to their supervisor. The supervisor, Spanier, failed to report it to DPW or the police.

      Delete
    3. JJ - If Schultz is not charged with failure to report than why did the Attorney General argue in the August 16, 2016 motion that Schultz being a "law enforcement official" meant he was a mandatory reporter of child abuse?

      Even if you are correct that Spanier is the only one charged with failure to report, his defense is that Curley and Schultz never reported suspected child abuse. They back him up on that.

      Delete
    4. Timmy, would you link the filing where the OAG makes this claim.

      The e-mail traffic indicates that it was report to Spanier as something beyond "horse play."

      Delete
  17. Me thinks jj is one of McQueary's 'fake friends'. Notice that the buck never stops with Mike. Everyone else has their feet held to the fire on every possibility that they might be complicit in some criminal intent. But Mike says 'I thought Schultz WAS the police' and, poof, he is off the hook. Never mind that Sandusky wasn't reigned in for ten years. I'd give Mike a week or two to realize his report may not have been taken seriously enough before taking another course of action given what he claims to have witnessed.

    Mike was the lone witness and is the only person of all of them who knew what he saw and could make a comprehensive report of the event. If his report was misunderstood or ignored, it was up to him to make sure it wasn't, unless of course he too was not sure of what he saw which is likely the truth given his inaction for 10 years. But we wouldn't be able to pilfer the PSU coffers unless we insist that Mike cried rape and was ignored. That is the trademark of the victimista.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I never met McQueary, never talked to him, never had any known contact with him, and never heard of him before November of 2011. As far as I know, we do not have mutual friends.

    McQueary is "off the hook" for the same reason Paterno was not indicted. He reported it to his supervisor, as did his supervisor, Paterno; that was lawful in 1998. Whether or not he thought that by reporting it to Schultz he was reporting it to the police is immaterial.

    You are free to say the same things about Paterno, but I would say that neither Paterno nor McQueary violated the law.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pennsylvania's corrupt courts, corrupt newspapers, and corrupt PSU business and industry BoT power block want you/us to focus on the McQueary shower incident only. Why? because it's ambiguous and can be argued ad infinitum without ever reaching a definitive conclusion. And because McQueary says he's not sure what he said way back then, and he's not sure what he saw way back then, and he's not sure what it all meant, Tom Corbett's OAG filled in the blanks for him. They paid some shill to send a threat or two, then advised PSU to send McQueary home for his "own safety". Corbett and Linda Kelly then proceeded to craft a rape story for the public. They got Mike out of the public eye for his "own safety" so he wouldn't slip-up and say something that disputes Tom Corbett's shower rape lie.

    It was a lie designed to distract us from Corbett's first 1995-1997 tenure as A.G. and his following two full terms beginning in 2005. And then, finally, his disgraceful one-term Governor stint. Folks, we're talking 10 years as PA's top cop and then another four years as the Governor! That's a total of 14 long years with intimate knowledge and paperwork of Sandusky's crimes, complaints made against him, and complaints made against The Second Mile! You see, Corbett's shower rape lie is still working beautifully to keep us arguing over just an insignificant grain of sand. Look past that single grain of sand that is Mike McQueary and what he "saw", and you'll see Corbett's huge sandcastle of corruption.

    So I think McQeary agreed to be quiet and play the victim because some crooked lawyers assured him that PSU has some very, very deep pockets. And the corrupt courts and Old Guard BoT members can easily access their commandeered PSU slush fund with the help of rigged juries and paid-off judges. McQeary followed their corruption game plan. And he's now a rich man because of something ambiguous, unclear, unproven, uncertain, and hazy that he saw. But he mostly just heard some cracking, snapping, slapping or tapping sounds. Sure that's it, the sounds of rape, we all know them. Whenever I hear sounds like these it can only be rape---or anything else that numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Truthseeker - I don't know if it was as calculated as you say but Corbett certainly played a huge role in getting Paterno and Spanier fired and defaming McQueary by accusing him of a moral failure before a national TV audience.

    As a former Attorney General, Corbett knew that it was wrong to fire whistleblower Paterno and put whistleblower McQueary on leave. Had he spoken up at the Trustee's meeting, he could have stopped both those actions.

    I think Corbett was more interested in burnishing his political star than doing his duty as a trustee when he appeared on "Meet the Press" to run down Penn State and McQueary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,

      I think the question a legitimate news outlet should be asking is, what is NOT calculated in this Corbett-created debacle? In Pennsylvania, nothing is left to chance if it may expose the corrupt courts and the corrupt institutions they protect. The corruption itself determines the outcome of any trial as is necessary for preserving that corruption. So self-preservation of the tangled web they've woven requires very calculated decisions. Call it what you want: collective opportunism, calculated, or a conspiracy---the very nature of a grand lie requires calculated decision making in order to preserve the lie. Whether that calculation is expediency or conspiracy depends on what we're describing. Is it the overall picture of an existing conspiracy of corruption? Or is it a small expedient decision that is required because of the dysfunction caused by that conspiracy of corruption?

      Once a person or an institution has chosen to live by dishonesty, every day that passes into the next becomes their calculated and precarious existence.

      Delete
  21. I doubt that it was as calculated.

    McQueary was put on leave after the firing, IIRC, and I doubt he had much of a role in that.

    While Corbett could have spoken, he had one vote, and could not have stopped anything that night.

    The problem was that the public, generally, wanted Paterno out. I had posted on a message board, a public one dealing with crime, that I felt that Paterno retiring at the end of the season was good enough. This was after he announced his retirement and before the firing. I did not have one poster supporting me. Not a single one. Someone said that he should be fired, and there dozens of supporters.

    Corbett and the BoT were not leading public opinion, they were following it at the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Followed public opinion? NO, they created the public opinion

      Delete
    2. No, it was too early, well before Paterno was fired and Corbett became involved as a trustee.

      Delete
  22. Would you cite the location of this argument? You might have misunderstood it. Only Spanier is charged with failure to report.

    ReplyDelete