PROSECUTION or PERSECUTION - The CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY - PENN STATE LEADERS UNDER ATTACK
by Barry Bozeman

“ The District Attorney is a quasi-judicial officer. He represents the commonwealth and the commonwealth demands no victims. It seeks justice only--equal and impartial justice-- and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes. Hence, he should act impartially. He should present the commonwealth’s case fairly, and should not press upon the jury any deductions from the evidence that are not strictly legitimate. When he exceeds this limit, and in hot zeal seeks to influence them by appealing to their prejudices, he is no longer an impartial official, but becomes a heated partisan.” Bailey v. Commonwealth, 193 Ky. 687, 237 S.W. 

In Nov of 2012 mere weeks prior to relinquishing the office to which she was appointed by Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly once again takes the stage to proffer charges against Penn State's former President Graham Spanier and to alter the charges against former AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz. 

SMSS was on this development prior to the typical staged circus designed by Kelly et al to maximize the theater for the chattering hyena class sometimes known as the media. Once again she fills her stage with a large supporting cast, this time featuring more uniforms than a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff. 

One thing leaps out at us from the beginning when taking more than a cursory glance at this freak show. What exactly was the motive for this Conspiracy of Silence touted by the Freeh Fiction and the Persecution? Why would covering for an ex-coach no longer on the payroll of PSU be of the slightest benefit to Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz? Please keep that in mind as you delve deeper into this morass of prevarications. 

PROSECUTORS - POWER CONFLICT and CORRUPTION with UNLIMITED RESOURCES

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY
by Barry Bozeman (an homage to Dr. Gonzo, who would have done justice to this story)

Prosecutors are “shepherds of justice.” When a government lawyer, with enormous resources at his or her disposal, abuses power and ignores ethical standards, he or she undermines public trust and inflicts damage beyond calculation to our system of justice. This consequence, alone, compels the responsible and ethical exercise of this power.

CORBETT, KELLY, BEEMER, FINA, BALDWIN, and FREEH

These 5 PROSECUTORS have the wealth and power of the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at their disposal and, in the case of prosecutor Freeh, 8.2 million Penn State dollars that he used to trash The Penn State Culture. 

CORBETT and BALDWIN both hold or held positions on the Penn State Board of Trustees. 
CORBETT became GOVERNOR.
BALDWIN was the GENERAL COUNSEL for Penn State University.

CORBETT was ATTORNEY GENERAL when the Grand Jury was convened. 
KELLY was CORBETT'S hand picked successor. She did not seek election.
BEEMER was KELLY'S chief of staff. 
FINA was lead prosecutor on the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases until he resigned. 
BEEMER took over for FINA.

The SLIME also RISES -- Segments of the following contain language and descriptions Dr. Gonzo might have used were he still with us. Hunter S Thompson (HST) was a master of descriptive hyperbole for effect. Picture: by Ralph Steadman, HST's artist of record.

PROSECUTORS PLAN NOVEMBER 5 PRESS CONFERENCE TO PERSECUTE PENN STATE

Well ... to hell with writing with reserved respect for the subjects of this essay. These malicious mendicants feeding from the public trough don't deserve polite measured consideration. These are bottom-feeding mutants on steroids, unfit for reason or respect. The Commonwealth has had more than its fair share of slimy creatures dredged up from permanently smoldering underground coal pits and fracking contaminated aquifers, particularly the prosecutors and judges who seem to flourish while committing some of the most heinous crimes in memory, crimes against children -- KIDS FOR CASH. 

CORBETT is a real piece of work. You can contemplate his Lebanon Valley BA and St Mary's Law Degree, as the absolute minimum requirement. His stint as counsel for Waste Management is so odorous that he has wiped it from his bio. As a prosecutor, Corbett is ethically unfit by the standards set forth by the American Bar Association: 

“ The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not to persecute, but to prosecute, and that he should endeavor to protect the innocent as well as to prosecute the guilty. He should always be interested in seeing that the truth and the right shall prevail….”

The muddy, blood-spattered path from prosecutor to higher political office is well worn and often traveled. PA politicians have plumbed the furthest depths of this sewer more often than most. It's an obvious route, where vastly superior resources in staff and wealth are pitted against individuals forced to pay hideous amounts of money to well-connected mouthpieces or suffer the consequences of representation by a court-appointed well meaning dullard of less than equal wit with none of the resources. Prosecutors have all the advantage and, too often, pursue publicity or a high conviction rate at the expense of truth or justice. The current reigning champion example of this being The West Memphis Three

House of Cards Rests on McQueary's Faulty Memory

The perjury and conspiracy charges against PSU officials depend on what Mike McQueary SAID, and not what he saw.  And the preliminary hearing transcripts prove he doesn't remember WHAT he said or, perhaps more importantly, WHO he told.

By
Ray Blehar

In the perjury case of Gary Schulz and Tim Curley, it's not what Mike McQueary saw that is in question.  It is what Mike McQueary said he saw.  And based on the preliminary hearing transcripts, he's not so sure what he said and who he told.

At the preliminary perjury hearing for Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, prosecutor Bruce Beemer's first question about what McQueary told the two men was met with a very solid answer.  

Mike firmly answered (with his rehearsed response),  it was "I told them I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and wrong."

His testimony went south after that.

If you're going to press perjury charges and you don't have a corroborating witness, your witness better be rock solid certain of what he said.....and McQueary is anything but rock solid.

What He Said, Part 1

Almost everything McQueary said after that first answer was qualified in by using the words "I would" or "I would not" or similar phrasing that is not definitive.  Experts call it a verbal tic, signaling McQueary was less certain about his testimony. Here are some examples...

Q: Did you describe....the body positioning of the individuals in the shower?
A: I would have given them a rough idea, yes.

Q: When you say a rough idea?
A:  I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a young boy with his arms wrapped around him.

Q: Would you have described for them what you believed the act was that you saw occurring in that shower?
A:  Yes.  Again, I would not have used some of the words you previously mentioned but I would have described that it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on.

The examples above were under "friendly" examination by the state's prosecutor.  When McQueary responded under cross examination, it was more of the same, except that he began experiencing memory loss.

Q:  When you met with Mr. Curley, did you say I believe he was having anal intercourse with this boy?
A:   I would not have used the words anal intercourse.  I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse.

Q:  Okay. And when you got to this portion of the description did Mr. Curley say anything to you?  Did he follow up asking questions?
A:   I can't recall.  I can't recall that, no ma'am.

Q:  Did he -- do you recall any instructions that he gave you?
A:   No -- only that, what I do recall and what he did do...

Q:  So during this very descriptive statement of yours to Mr. Curley about sex -- a possible sex act in the shower, Mr. Curley didn't -- you don't recall Mr. Curley asking you any questions or stopping and clarifying anything that you were telling him?
A:  I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't recall those questions or if he did ask questions.

Q: But you can recall specifically what you told him?
A: Yes, I can recall what I would have said about what I saw, yes, ma'am.

It is hard to believe that Caroline Roberto, who questioned McQueary, didn't attempt to make Mike be more specific and clarify his qualified statements.  But, maybe that was part of the strategy to get Mike's uncertain testimony on the record.

What He Said, Part 2

I don't know about you, but the words "extremely sexual" and "extreme sex act" were not words I used before this scandal broke.  Chances are, Mike never used them either until he and his father met with the lawyers in the attorney general's office.

John McQueary testified that Mike would have never used the words "horsing around."  He related "That's an archaic term that my dad would have said to me.  I don't think I would have used it, and I haven't used it, and I don't think Mike knows it."

Jeepers H. Christmas!  John McQueary doesn't think Mike knows the term horsing around?  Joe Paterno used that term quite frequently.  It's a very common term, but apparently not in the McQueary household.

"Horsing around" -- not used or known by Mike.

"Extremely sexual" -- used quite frequently by Mike.

Conversations around the McQueary household must have been pretty interesting.  For example:

John M:  Mike, your mom's birthday is coming up.  Don't get her anything for the house, go out and buy her something extremely sexual.

Mike M: I know exactly what you mean, Dad.  I saw some extremely sexual bathrobes at WalMart yesterday.

Mrs. M:  Mike, I just finished frying some eggs and they look extremely sexual -- would you like some?

For John McQueary to posit that Mike wouldn't have told Curley and Schultz it was "horsing around" because its a term Mike wouldn't know is preposterous.  And, the AG's choice of the words to describe the incident --  "extremely sexual" -- is equally preposterous.

It's one thing to have McQueary lie about what he told Curley and Schultz, but if you're going to have McQueary lie, at least have him use some words that are believable.

Who He Told, Part 1

McQueary experienced some memory loss when asked about what he said.  However, that paled in comparison to his memory loss when asked who he told.

From page 62 of the Preliminary Perjury transcript:

Q:  You have gone through with Mr. Beemer all of the people that you confronted and told about the incident.  Did you ever that night confront Mr. Sandusky with what you saw.
A:  No, Never.

McQueary's non-answer to the first part infers that he agreed he had discussed, at the hearing, all of the people he told about the incident.  However, it is well documented (in two cases) that he did tell others about Sandusky showering with a child.  And though this has not been reported in the press, those who played in Second Mile golf tournaments stated there were rumors of Sandusky "horsing around" with boys in the showers.

First, there was the person who reported his message board chat to the Centre County DA.  And there would be other people -- including Mike's brother - who were in the chat as well.

Next, McQueary told an equipment manager about the incident.  There is a footnote on page 88 of the Freeh Report stating: "According to Baldwin's notes, the manager advised her that McQueary had told him "that [McQueary] saw something that changed his life. [McQueary] had to tell Coach Paterno."

Finally, there were rumors at The Second Mile golf tournament during the last decade, that Sandusky was "horsing around" in showers with little boys.  Given the number of coaches and former players who play in the golf tournaments, it's possible that McQueary told others on the coaching staff and former players about what he witnessed.

Who He Told, Part 2

During the time of this scandal the only "witnesses" called to testify about McQueary's testimony were:  Joe Paterno, Jonathon Dranov, John McQueary, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz.   And none of the witnesses corroborate McQueary's account of reporting a sexual act -- except John McQueary -- who couldn't even remember testifying at the preliminary hearing.

However, it's clear that there were other people McQueary told, so why haven't they been identified and called as witnesses?

The most likely reason, as it was in the case of Victim 2, is that the other witnesses don't corroborate or, more likely, contradict McQueary's story.

It is likely that the chatters, the equipment manager, and the former players (that Mike told about the incident)  would testify to an account similar to Dr. Dranov's -- that McQueary only heard sounds, the incident happened around a corner, and that Mike saw Sandusky and a child exit the shower.

Where are these witnesses and why haven't we heard from them?

Are they not coming forward for fear of losing their jobs and/or business deals with PSU?