Saturday, June 30

Emails and Agendas

So now we have versions of four emails leaked by someone to CNN. I suspect the leak came from a civil attorney for one of the victims from something told to him by a contact with the Freeh investigation. The email text is not exact but it has added fuel to the anti PSU/Paterno bonfire started by the media in the wake of the Grand Jury Presentment of Nov 5 2011. Since that time PSU has been on the defensive - despite the Board of Trustees capitulation and surrender without a shot.
The media is taking the emails as proof of a coverup and complicity of Joe Paterno. "How could they know that pedophile Sandusky raped a boy in the PSU showers and then think it humane to ban JS from PSU without reporting it to the authorities" is the general theme.
It seems these email leaks most benefit civil attorneys in settlement talks and in their support for the AG's theme. PSU knew of a dangerous pedophile and covered it up.

This overlooked information is quite informative. and it's the first time I've seen it mentioned.
The documents, the sources say, show that former university President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they were obligated to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter in a Penn State shower room between Sandusky and a young boy, both of whom were naked. The documents allegedly show that university officials even did legal research on whether such conduct might be a crime.
Why would Spanier, Schultz, and Curley do legal research on their obligation to report if they were going to cover up knowledge of a crime? It seems quite obvious that they took the vague report of McQueary seriously to see if what he reported to them required them to report it outside of PSU. This all comes back to what MM said to Joe, Tim and Gary. And it's evident his report did not make them believe it was credible or serious.
So first let's take a look at the summary of the email's content as presented by CNN.
This first email outlines a plan
In an alleged e-mail dated February 26, 2001, Schultz writes to Curley that he assumes Curley's "got the ball" about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" and "contacting the Department of Welfare,"
This second email revises that plan 
The next evening, February 27, Curley allegedly writes to Spanier. Schultz, who's out of the office for two weeks, is copied. Curley writes: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps." "I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved," Curley writes he'd be "more comfortable" meeting with Sandusky himself and telling him they know about the 2001 incident and -- according to a source with knowledge of the case -- refers to another shower incident with a boy in 1998 that was investigated by police, but never resulted in charges against Sandusky. Curley writes to Penn State's president Spanier that he wants to meet with Sandusky, tell him there's "a problem," and that "we want to assist the individual to get professional help." if Sandusky "is cooperative," Penn State "would work with him" to tell Second Mile. If not, Curley states, the university will inform both Second Mile and outside authorities. adds that he intends to inform Sandusky that his "guests" won't be allowed to use Penn State facilities anymore. "What do you think of this approach?"
The third email is Spaniers agreement to the revised plan
About two hours later, Spanier responded to Curley in another e-mail and copied Schultz. Spanier allegedly called the plan "acceptable", but worries whether it's the right thing to do, according to two sources. "The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly wrote. "But that can be assessed down the down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed," he adds.
and the final leaked email indicates Schultz agreeing to the revised plan
The next afternoon, Schultz allegedly responded to the Penn State president and its athletic director. Schultz signs off on handling the matter without telling anyone on the outside, at least for now. "This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this,' Schultz purportedly wrote. But he made clear Penn State should inform Sandusky's charity Second Mile "with or without (Sandusky's) cooperation." As for telling child welfare authorities, he added, "we can play it by ear."
but what happens following the meetings Tim had with JS, Jack Raykovitz, and the final meeting with Mike? Where are those emails? Why are they not being leaked? Do they not fit the agenda?
06/29/12 – Statement issued by Tom Farrell, Counsel to Gary Schultz, and Caroline Roberto, Counsel to Tim Curley:
"As Governor Tom Corbett stated, "If we were going to do this case, we had to have the best possible case to go against somebody like Mr. Sandusky who was … loved by everybody. Carried out of the football stadium on the shoulders of his football team. How can anybody say there must be something wrong with him?" (Patriot News, June 25, 2012) For Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, the responsible and "humane" thing to do was, like Governor Corbett, to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague, but troubling allegations. Faced with tough situations, good people try to do their best to make the right decisions."
Let's go back to Nov 5 2011 and the Grand Jury Presentment stating this
Mike McQueary SAW a naked Sandusky forcing a boy to endure anal intercourse .............. He went to Joe Paterno and told him THAT. Later it says he also told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz that.
We now know that is a LIE but the media and people following the case through the media think this was the TRUTH
But the Jury in the Jerry Sandusky Case thought differently and found JS not guilty of the rape charge 'deviate sexual intercourse' in the case of Victim 2 - the one charge in the Presentment that brought the most wrath on PSU.
—Victim 2: A boy of about 10 that a graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, has said he saw being attacked by Sandusky in the team showers in February 2001. Investigators have not been able to determine the boy's identity. McQueary reported what he saw to head coach Joe Paterno, and Paterno's handling of it contributed to the university's decision to fire him shortly after Sandusky was arrested in November. Sandusky was found guilty of indecent assault, unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
It is interesting to note that they found him not guilty of two other shower assault charges on the PSU campus
—Victim 5: Sandusky put his hand on the boy's leg while in a car, they showered together and he placed the boy's hand on his genitals, according to his testimony in court. The alleged incident occurred in August 2001, while the boy was 12 or 13. Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of indecent assault.

—Victim 6: While showering together in May 1998, he testified that Sandusky grabbed him and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out" and that the ex-coach said he was the "tickle monster." The boy's mother complained when he came home with wet hair, prompting a police investigation at the time that did not result in charges. The boy was 11. Sandusky was found guilty of unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of indecent assault,
These charges were reduced to the one’s involving grooming eliminating the key felony charges. It's the lawyer for Victim 5 who appeared on CNN to blast PSU over the emails. What is his agenda? I think we know that beyond doubt.
So these are the facts, the suppositions about 4 emails that may or may not be complete, the verdicts of a jury about showers at PSU and the inaccurate statement in the Presentment that has created the media misconception about what Joe, Tim, Gary and Dr. Spanier knew. This makes the media narrative and the agenda of the investigators suspect.
Here are a few questions to mull over in the wake of these leaks.
  1. Why leak these emails this way?
  2. Does someone stand to profit in settlement negotiations?
  3. Why did the AG make that totally inaccurate statement in the presentment?
  4. Where is the Grand Jury testimony of Raykovitz? We have Joe's, Tims & Gary
  5. What was the conversation between Dr Jack and AD Curley?
  6. Did he offer to investigate JS internally?
  7. Did he offer to keep a closer eye in JS activities?
  8. Did he beg Curley not to go to CYS and allow him to handle it?
  9. Did he have further evidence that cleared JS like knowing this particular boy and the situation?
  10. Had he already investigated similar situations and did he have compelling information that this had happened often but none of the kids involved reported bad things happening?
  11. What did JS say to Tim in their meeting?
  12. What did Tim report back to Gary and Dr. Spanier after meeting with JS?
  13. What did he report back after his meeting with Raykovitz
  14. Where are those emails? Do they make the decision seem reasonable?
  15. Why haven't we heard from Jack Raykovitz?
  16. What did Tim report to Gary and Dr. Spanier about his last meeting with Mike?
  17. Was Mike satisfied with the solution at the time?
Can we truly make anything more of the situation given these leaks? What is the agenda behind them? The attack on Joe and PSU continues. Like water torture the prosecutors drip drip drip out the information they want the public to know and withhold that they don't want known. They have control of the agenda - Freeh and the AG.
Blood is in the water and big money is at stake for some. The truth and justice sometimes meet. So far it's not easy to tell what is the truth. The AG and the Freeh people should be better than this unless there is something else at work here that we do not yet see. Questions upon questions remain and until we see Tim and Gary at the Perjury Trial we will have few answers.

Monday, June 25

McQueary Testimonies and Contradictions

To my BSD friends: In the ongoing discussion of the culpability of AD Curley and VP Schultz it seems as if two camps have developed. This constitutes my complete argument on behalf of the beleaguered AD and VP and thus PSU based on as much evidence as is available.
Perhaps the major difference is generational in our initial reaction to the idea of man and boy in shower. Perhaps we differ in our opinion of the competence of police over university administrators. But this is a serious defense of PSU in the person of it's administrators and the reasonableness of assuming that JS should have been stopped in 2001.
Remember as you read this that Tim and Gary only met with Mike for 10 or 12 minutes over a week following Feb 9, 2001 and their Grand Jury testimony reflects a less than perfect memory of that decade old meeting. Following that meeting Tim Curley got an explanation from Sandusky. Then they questioned and informed Dr. Raykovitz and finally they informed Dr. Spanier who make the final decision.

This fanpost will consider a key part of this situation - The testimonies of McQueary - who's words misused by AG Kelly are largely responsible for the tarnish on the image of PSU and Coach Paterno
These are the central questions - what did McQueary say to Schultz and Curley? What did they do about whatever he told them? And was the decision by Dr. Spanier based on their investigation reasonable at the time?
McQueary didn’t go into "gross detail," he said – not with his father, and not with Joe Paterno. McQueary told his father, "Dad, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on."
We know Mike told Paterno of seeing JS and a boy in the showers never saying rape or intercourse choosing instead to use "inappropriate" and perhaps "fondling". Paterno GJ Testimony read into Perjury Hearing transcript P 240
He told Dr. Dranov that he never said he saw a "sex act" but insisted he heard "sexual sounds" and "saw an arm reach out of the showers and draw a boy back in". "The boy was not startled or frightened" Dranov testimony at JS trial
We know he did not tell his father what he saw saying instead "Dad it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out".
We know Schultz and Curley say he did not give specifics leaving Schultz with the impression he had observed horseplay in the form of wrestling that might have involved inadvertent contact with genitals but nothing he considered criminal. It seems reasonable to me that MM did not tell Gary and Tim anything more that he told his father, Dr. Dranov, or Coach Paterno and that was not enough. See Perjury Hearing transcript p 204 thru 235
McQUEARY UNDER OATH - the Grand Jury, Perjury Hearing and the Trial
We know that the Grand Jury Presentment insisted MM's testimony was that he observed JS subjecting the boy to anal intercourse and informed PSU officials Paterno, Curley and Schultz. Presentment pages 6 and 7
His perjury hearing testimony: 2 or 3 slapping sounds "rhythmic and sexual" and two 2 second glances of JS backside with no hands or genitals in view as JS stood behind a boy who's head came up to his pectoral muscles with his feet on the floor. Perjury Hearing Transcript
And finally the testimony at trial was more confident as he added that he saw subtle movement from JS midsection as he claimed certainty that he was a witness to rape. What movement can be observed or certainty established in 1 or 2 seconds? McQueary Testimony summary
The jury in deliberation asked to hear the McQueary and Dranov testimony read again. It was the only testimony they reviewed. Their verdict was "not guilty" on the count of deviate sexual intercourse so they did not believe MM and his certainty about witness of a rape. Jury hears testimony again
The defense did not use the Perjury Hearing testimony or the various versions of McQueary's statements to impeach his trial testimony about an unidentified "victim" 2. Don't expect attorneys for Schultz and Curley to be so negligent and soft on Mike. The prosecution used mannequins to illustrate the positions of the boy and JS according to the testimony.

Sunday, June 24

McQueary Testimony - Known Facts and My Opinion

by Barry Bozeman

To my PSU friends: In the ongoing discussion of the culpability of AD Curley and VP Schultz it seems as if two camps have developed. This constitutes my complete argument on behalf of the beleaguered AD and VP and thus PSU based on as much evidence as is available.
Perhaps the major difference is generational in our initial reaction to the idea of man and boy in a shower. Perhaps we differ in our opinion of the competence of police over university administrators. But this is a serious defense of PSU in the person of its' administrators and the reasonableness of assuming that JS should have been stopped in 2001.

McQueary Testimony Details

Former Penn State wide receivers coach Mike McQueary testified Tuesday afternoon that he saw Jerry Sandusky naked in the Lasch Football Building shower with a boy who was also naked and standing extremely close together.
He saw them through a mirror and in plain sight, a total of three times.
McQueary said the two were standing “very, very – in the closest proximity that you could be.”
“Both saw me. I saw the fronts of their bodies. We looked directly into each other’s eyes,” McQueary said.
Then a graduate student, McQueary had gone to the football building with the intent to get some work done. He was in high spirits after watching the film “Rudy,” he said.
Earlier that day, on Feb. 9, 2001, McQueary had bought a new pair of sneakers, which he decided to stow in his locker that night.
“There are two doors to that locker room immediately upon opening that door. I heard showers running, smacking sounds,” McQueary said. “Very much skin-on-skin smacking sounds.”
Initially, McQueary said he was embarrassed because he thought he was walking in on an intimate moment between two adults. Not wanting to interrupt, he proceeded to his locker.
“In that room my locker was immediately to the right of that second door. I turn to my locker, I glance over my right shoulder into the mirror,” he said. “I was not looking into the shower with my own eyes.
“I see coach Sandusky with a boy and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy’s hands are up against the wall,” McQueary said.
“I immediately turn back to my locker, trying to digest what I just saw. I stepped two or three feet to my right … I didn’t want to trust the mirror."
McQueary saw exactly what he saw before, he said. Sandusky’s arms were wrapped around the boy’s midsection and Sandusky’s midsection was moving. There was no hard or fast movement.
McQueary said he put his shoes in his locker and slammed the door shut with all his might, in hopes of indicating that someone else was in the locker room. He said his head was spinning and he had a hard time dealing with what was going on.
“You don’t expect to see anything like that, ever,” he said. “This is the Penn State football building … No, you don’t register that.
“I wasn’t thinking. I’m used to pressure situations and I think that’s more than my brain could handle.”
McQueary called his father right away, who told him to come over to his house immediately so his son could better explain what he saw.
McQueary didn’t go into “gross detail,” he said – not with his father, and not with Joe Paterno.
McQueary told his father, “Dad, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on.”
The next day, a Saturday, McQueary called the Paterno home around 7:15 a.m. The coach thought he was gunning for a job – positions were open at the time – but McQueary said he explained to the coach it was about something very important.
“I told him what I had seen – again, on the surface. I made sure that he knew it was sexual and it was wrong,” McQueary said. “I did not do anything after that conversation. I waited for something to happen.”
Per the Grand Jury report, McQueary met with then athletic director Tim Curley and then vice president Gary Schultz, who was also head of Penn State Police. McQueary said Schultz’s position was the reason he never contacted a uniformed officer regarding what he saw in the Lasch Building shower.
“In my mind, Shultz represented the police, without a doubt,” McQueary said.
Photos of the Lasch Football Building locker room were shown to McQueary so that he could verify the location of his locker and its proximity to the shower. Mannequins in the form of an adult male and a male child were standing in the shower in one of the photos.
Another photo depicted the location of what McQueary could see in the mirror’s reflection. McQueary is in two of the photos.
After the incident, McQueary said he avoided any contact with Sandusky, with whom he never spoke about what he saw.
“If Jerry would come in the equipment room I would get up and leave real fast,” McQueary said. “I saw something and didn’t want to be around him.”
During cross-examination, McQueary said it was out of respect for his father, Paterno and the other men his seniors that he did not divulge any details that he considered too perverse, vulgar or overly sexual.
Counsel for the defense Karl Rominger questioned whether he was sure Sandusky and the boy saw him the night he heard showers running late in the locker room.
“I’m sure they saw me,” McQueary said. “I don’t know how they didn’t. I get seen a lot of places.”
When McQueary was asked about his statement, “I didn’t just leave, I made sure it stopped,” he said that the slamming of his locker was to what he was alluding.
After he slammed the locker, McQueary said Sandusky and the boy had separated.

Friday, June 22

MORALLY BANKRUPT PSU - Jury Hears McQueary and Dranov Again

the forces that conspired to allow Sandusky free rein on the campus of Pennsylvania State University for way too long are just as guilty as Sandusky. If prosecuted and convicted, they will be found guilty of different crimes, but had they acted differently fewer children would have been molested.
That's about as clearly as it can be put. If people had done the right thing, fewer children would have been hurt. Getting that side of the equation brought to justice will be the difficult part, however, because the walls of power are high, and those who inhabit them have resources that enable them to remain inside.

Well perhaps that is technically correct Bob but if by some miracle an investigation had resulted in something different than the 1998 situation there were as far as we know only 2 "victims" following that Feb 2001 Mike McQueary incident who claim abuse from 2006 thru 2007. The 1998 investigation did nothing to stop JS yet Bob Ford is somehow convinced the 2 "1 or 2" second glances by MM of JS backside and an unknown 2M boy standing upright in a shower would have somehow kept PSU from being "morally bankrupt"

While Sandusky can be easily put away as a rogue freak who passed among us, Schultz, Curley, and Spanier were the very cloth of the community, and if that can be rended, what does it say about the community? If the all-encompassing influence over the region - Penn State - can be demonstrated to be morally bankrupt at its core, then what about the rest of us? A jury can slam the door on Sandusky, who was willing to answer fully to Bob Costas but not to the people of the commonwealth, but what will happen when Schultz, Curley, and Spanier ask their peers to understand how difficult it is to steer this large ship that carries so much that is good?

Morally bankrupt at it's core? Because Mike McQueary failed to take the initiative to substantiate his suspicions or make them clear?

Yes, that will be the difficult part, and twice difficult because it will once again take the conversation in the vicinity of Joe Paterno, a place where emotion has trumped common sense in the past.
Self righteous certainly trumped common sense in most of the national media since last November.
Schultz and Curley told much the same story, that they knew only about the 2001 incident in the Lasch Football Building that was reported to them, through Paterno, by assistant coach Mike McQueary. While it was worth looking into, McQueary's version didn't sound like anything took place aside from a little "horseplay," according to Schultz and Curley, who didn't report it to child-protection authorities.
So Bob Ford knows what MM said to Schultz and Curley in a 10 to 12 minute meeting over a decade ago? Mr. Ford knows that it was not reported to child protection authorities as Mr. Schultz recalls?
It all sounded very reasonable until former FBI director Louie Freeh was able to recover e-mails between Spanier and Schultz that were thought to have been deleted permanently. The evidence was turned over to the Attorney General's Office, and, according to published reports, the e-mails make it clear that Spanier might not have been accurate in his recollection to the grand jury. In one e-mail, Spanier is alleged to have written that turning in Sandusky wouldn't be the "humane" thing to do. Oh, boy. It also turns out that Schultz, who was in charge of the campus police force, kept a detailed file on Sandusky.
So Mr. Ford somehow knows the context of the word "humane" in a deleted email and has insight on the "detail" in an old file?
We've seen a parade of 28 witnesses claiming that Jerry Sandusky was almost Saint like. People who knew JS well and several who were much the same as the 8 'victims' who took the stand - none of which is the 'victim' Ford claims makes PSU "morally bankrupt".
We heard Dr. Jonathan Dranov tell the jury that on the night of this Feb 2001 incident Mike McQueary could not tell his father or the good Doctor that he had witnessed a sex act - only that he heard "sexual" sounds that consisted of 2 or 3 slapping sounds. Somehow those 2 or 3 slapping sounds and 2 "one or two second glances of JS backside" should have resulted in the end of any abuse done by the founder of The Second Mile so highly regarded for his work with underprivileged kids?
Mr. Ford and many other superior folk seem to know they would have been all over these 'suspicions' by a young grad assistant who was clearly not certain of anything based on what he has said under oath. Yes he saw something he thought was "inappropriate" and Schultz and Curley agreed. They put an end to that inappropriate behavior at Penn State.
Did they contact child protective services? Schultz believes they did. But if they called and spoke to anyone saying that a grad assistant had heard a couple of slapping sounds and glanced for a couple of seconds JS and a boy in the shower following the 1998 investigation what would the child protective person who took the call have done? Was there really enough to launch and investigation by an understaffed agency? Could such a call have been forgotten?
Or is it so clear to you that whatever Mike McQueary might have said in those 10 to 12 minutes in Feb 2001 should have resulted in the end of Jerry Sandusky that you are willing to declare an entire community and university as "morally bankrupt"? I look at you Bob Ford and I see a writer who is morally bankrupt.
Where does the power lie in this situation Bob? With an Attorney General who has singled out Penn State over the vague recollections of brief glances and slapping sounds a decade ago in an incident with no known victim? With a media that bought the Attorney Generals presentment without any critical thought? With a Governor who investigated much more serious allegations for 2 years without action? Or with a retired VP and an Athletic Director who don't recall this grad assistant telling them any more than what he told his father, Dr. Dranov, or Joe Paterno?
The jury will decide the fate of Jerry Sandusky who is clearly an accomplished predator who fooled a great many people or *far less likely - the target of a conspiracy to extract big lawsuit payoffs. But people like you are willing to claim some moral failure of an entire community and university because this monster or (far less likely) "martyr" happened to end up in State College?
Morally Bankrupt? I see a lot of that going around lately mainly from members of the media whose self-righteous bullshit knows no bounds.

The jury of seven women and five men will return to the courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa., at 9 a.m., when they will rehear testimony from Mike McQueary, a former graduate assistant coach who said he saw Sandusky abusing a boy in the showers at Penn State’s football training facility. They will also rehear the testimony of the friend he talked to that night, Dr. Jonathan Dranov. Testifying as a defense witness, Dranov described a less graphic version that he said McQueary told him in 2001.
Judge John Cleland told the jurors that McQueary's testimony was about two hours long and Dranov's was about 20 minutes.
McQueary testified that he had returned to the locker room on a winter night in 2001 and saw Sandusky in the showers with a naked boy, about 10 to 12 years old. McQueary told jurors that he saw Sandusky directly behind the boy’s back, moving in a way that convinced him that a sex act was in progress. He said he heard the sound of skin slapping against skin.
Dranov, however, testified that McQueary gave no such graphic description that night, saying only that he heard sounds he considered sexual. The boy in the case has never been identified and is known in court papers only as Victim 2.

Wednesday, June 20

The "Secret" Files - & BOT Vice Chair Masser a Threat to PSU?

Penn State's Gary Schultz lied about Jerry Sandusky case, prosecutors say secret files show - Really? Why would the AG's prosecutors make such a seriously stupid statement? Do they think we are not paying attention?
And more from PSU BOT Vice Chairman Keith Masser - who seems to wish for a slew of lawsuits.
So where is the "lie" about this "secret file"? Schultz says any notes he may have made or file that might have existed way back a decade ago would have been left in his office or likely destroyed.
If this was some cover up it would have been taken with him or definitely destroyed but he did not find the incident report by Mike McQueary anything to cover up or to keep track of at the time. Schultz definitely did not review any notes about the incident prior to his Grand Jury Testimony and he did not consult with Tim Curley about their testimony nor did he acquire counsel.
Board of Trustees Gets Roasted by Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship put out a lengthy statement Monday night, saying Masser isn’t acting in the university’s best interest. Following the revelation in court documents that former president Graham Spanier and vice president Gary Schultz had an email conversation about whether to report allegations of child sex abuse made against Jerry Sandusky in 2001, Masser said in an interview with the Associated Press: "It now appears like top administrative officials and top athletic officials were involved in making the decision to not inform the proper authorities."
He continued: "From a board standpoint it was Judge Freeh’s investigation that found these emails that relate Spanier, Curley and Schultz to the suspected cover-up."
Schultz and athletic director Tim Curley have both been charged with perjury and failure to report in that case. Spanier was fired from the president’s job by the board in November. Former FBI director Louis Freeh was hired by the board to do an internal investigation following the scandal.
PS4RS released a statement that read in part: "The trustees have repeatedly promised that they would not review or edit the report scheduled to be released late this summer. They have, in fact, said that they would first see the report only when it was released to the public. "That begs the question whether Mr. Masser has had an opportunity to read the email file and, if so, who provided it to him. Former President Graham Spanier, who has not been accused of any crime, has sued the university for access to all of his emails."
Attorneys for Curley and Schultz have said the emails — revealed by state prosecutors in court documents as evidence that bolsters their case — only shows that the administrators took careful consideration of what to do when presented with the allegation by assistant coach Mike McQueary. They "conscientiously considered and deliberated how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly," the statement read.
A lawyer for PS4RS, Robert J. Tribeck, said, "once again, this board seems to have no understanding of or concern for the basic concept of due process." "They feed the media sensational quotes and potentially do grave damage to the university and the individuals involved. We have to question the effectiveness of the university legal counsel and PR firms to allow a trustee to make such statements. Contrary to what Mr. Masser may believe, his statements, made a member of the Board of Trustees, constitute a statement of the Board of Trustees and will undoubtedly be utilized in pending litigation against the university." The founder of the group,Michelle Murosky, asked for Masser’s immediate resignation.
What was Masser thinking? Does he want PSU to bear the brunt of numerous lawsuits? This is worth repeating:
"once again, this board seems to have no understanding of or concern for the basic concept of due process." "They feed the media sensational quotes and potentially do grave damage to the university and the individuals involved. We have to question the effectiveness of the university legal counsel and PR firms to allow a trustee to make such statements. Contrary to what Mr. Masser may believe, his statements, made a member of the Board of Trustees, constitute a statement of the Board of Trustees and will undoubtedly be utilized in pending litigation against the university."
Masser's remarks make it seem he wants PSU to be sued. Or so believes the Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
Keith Masser, a Penn State trustee, said in an interview that he initially thought the scandal was about a failure of administrative oversight of the football program. Now he suspects it goes deeper.
When the board of trustees ousted Spanier on Nov. 9, four days after Sandusky’s arrest, it was "because we didn’t have confidence in his ability to lead us through this crisis," Masser said. "We had no idea (at the time) he would be involved in a cover-up."
Masser stressed he was speaking for himself and not the board at large, and said he wants to be careful not to draw premature conclusions. But he said it now appears like "top administration officials and top athletic officials were involved in making the decision to not inform the proper authorities."
With prosecutors focused on the sex-abuse allegations against Sandusky, the trial isn’t intended to yield evidence of a possible cover-up. That’s the job of Louis Freeh, the former FBI director hired by the board of trustees to investigate the scandal. His report could be released in late summer.
Spanier, who has not been charged with any crime, did not respond to email and phone messages. His attorney did not return a phone call.
The law firm defending Curley and Schultz against charges they lied in their grand jury testimony and failed to report suspect abuse said in a statement this week they "conscientiously considered" McQueary’s account and "deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly." They did not respond to follow-up questions posed by the AP.
Masser said the Freeh investigation is helping Penn State get to the bottom of the scandal.
"I hope the truth comes out, and from a board standpoint it was Judge Freeh’s investigation that found these emails that relate Spanier, Curley and Schultz to the suspected cover-up," he said. "I want the alumni to understand and the stakeholders to understand that this independent investigation is uncovering this information.
Perhaps he is simply not sophisticated enough to comprehend the damage his remarks could do. He is claiming that a cover up existed on the word of the prosecution just as the BOT jumped to the conclusion that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier had to go based on the AG's Presentment and Press Release.
Keith E. Masser (Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees) Sacramento, Pennsylvania, a family farm, whichproduces potatoes, cash grain and hay, and processes dehydrated and fresh cut potato products.Keith is a graduate of Penn State with a B.S. in Agricultural Engineering, and is actively involved with the university as a member of the Mount Nittany Society He has been honored with the following awards: the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Outstanding Alumni in 2008, the Red Book Produce Directory Business Character Award in 2007, the Vance Publishing Potato Man of the Year in 2005, the American Vegetable Grower Achievement Award national finalist in 2003, the Top Producer of the Year Finalist in 2002, the EPA Environmental Stewardship Award and the Master Farmer in 1998,
Does that explain this?
If anything the statement of Schultz prove beyond all doubt there was no coverup.
6/12/12 – Statement issued by Tom Farrell, Counsel to Gary Schultz

"To be clear, Mr. Schultz did not possess any secret files. All his files were left behind after he retired and were available to his secretaries and his successor. The only "secret" information revealed was the privileged grand jury information inaccurately described by unidentified law enforcement sources to the media."
There were no SECRET FILES held by Gary Schultz. There is no cover up. A group involved in a cover up at least gets together with counsel prior to Grand Jury Testimony to refresh their memories and get their stories straight. Shultz's testimony makes it clear that he didn't review any notes or even speak with Tim Curley to coordinate their statements. His memory of a decade old 10 or 15 min meeting with Mike McQueary was completely vague. He thought Child Protective Services was contacted he said in testimony.
The only thing Gary Schultz was guilty of was perhaps bad judgment and a faulty memory. There is no perjury here and certainly no cover up. The prosecution is absurd. I would be most appreciative if any of you who actually believe Gary Schultz committed perjury would take the 10 or 15 minutes to scan the transcript of Schultz's testimony you will find on pages 204 thru 235 at this LINK.

With regard to perjury, Pennsylvania law provides, "a person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent … when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true."Schultz's attorney Thomas J. Farrell accused the Attorney General of setting a ‘perjury trap.’ "You bring someone into a grand jury to investigate something that can’t be prosecuted, something that isn’t a crime, and then you take that persons’ inconsistencies or inaccuracies, or failure to remember what happened nine years ago," said Farrell. "Then you manufacture a charge out of it. That’s what the Attorney General has done to these men."

Want to help this effort to set the record straight 
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 

Tuesday, June 5

Victims and Questions Go to Trial

My hope is this Fanpost will give us a different direction not yet covered in depth in our conversations here on BSD. We have not as yet focused on the 10 "victims" in this case and what we know about the allegations they will bring outside of the oft discussed unknown "victim" 2. We know "victim" 6 is the well documented and heavily investigated 1998 shower and "victim" 8 is the unknown 2000 incident involving the janitor with dementia. So let us look closely at the other 7 allegations, where and when they occurred and how that squares with Attorney General Kelly making this all about PSU.
So these things interest me - particularly the decision by the AG to attack PSU and Joe Paterno
1) Everyone should pay close attention to the dates, people and places involved in these lists, Remember the outrage at PSU and Joe Paterno stems from the idea that many victims would have been spared if MM or Paterno Curley or Schultz had involved the police over MM's 2 three second glances? Well as it happens only two of these "victims" suffered abuse after 2001 - Victim 1 who it took 3 years of investigation to bring charges and victim 9 whose alleged abuse came off campus in 2006. Two is 2 too many but nothing like the idea put forward by the AG. My view is that an investigation by police of the 2001 incident would have ended like the 1998 incident - a questionable shower but nothing criminal. AG Kelly destroyed the reputations of many good people and cost a great university 10 million dollars and a tsunami of grief and degradation. So screw her and her despicable lack of vision or her malice aforethought.
2) How many of these charges are simply designed to pad the list in order to make a case based on a larger number of alleged victims? As I see it only 4 of the 10 are the type of serious charges that would be prosecuted on their own merits. In 2 of 10 cases there is no know victim (2 & 8), in 4 others the allegations are "blurry" or vague (3 & 5) and in a couple not necessarily criminal (6 & 7) *a hand on a thigh or shorts. These less than adequate allegations seem specifically designed to sully the reputation of PSU.
3) After the Feb 2001 incident witnessed by MM 5 years passed before there are the allegations concerning victims 1 and 9. Does that make any sense? How does a dedicated pedophile go for 5 or 6 years without any activity? Did the investigation skip any comprehensive questioning of Second Mile parents and former participants? The only known victims of the 2000's are 1 and 9 from 2006 thru 2008.
I hope this gives us something fresh for contemplation and comment. The other stuff has gotten pretty stale and repetitive. Maybe this will give us a fresh perspective to discuss from the perspective of these victims and the trial.
First we have the Factbox from Reuters: that can be compared to the presentment information on 9 and 10 HERE and on one thru eight HERE. Remember that a presentment is designed to get an indictment and recall what was said about MM's two 3 second glances. So these are the strongest allegations the prosecution could make at the time and that likely has not changed. So how does this stack up in your mind knowing that?
VICTIM 1 - The boy alleges Sandusky indecently fondled him and they performed oral sex on each other. He was 11 or 12 when he met Sandusky in 2005 or 2006 through the Second Mile.. An elementary-school wrestling coach discovered Victim 1 and Sandusky having physical contact in a weight room in 2007. This is what finally brought on the presentment in 2011.
Alleged victim one took his story to then AG Tom Corbett back in 2007/8 and Corbett took over 2 years with one investigator before becoming Governor and turning over the investigation to LInda Kelly. My opinion is there must be some serious problem with his testimony because of the long delay taken by the AG's office to bring charges. Note these events did not involve PSU and this is one of the first incidents along with Victim 9 after Feb 9, 2001 - the date of the alleged victim 2 incident. Wonder why there are no victims between Feb 2001 and 2006?
VICTIM 2 - Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant, said he saw Sandusky in a shower with a boy about 10 years old on February 9, 2001. The date was originally reported as 2002. The incident was not reported to police or child welfare services. The boy has not been identified. Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley face charges of perjury for differing accounts of a decade old 10 or 15 min meeting.
We have gone over the Perjury Hearing Testimony of Mike McQueary in nauseating detail so often we all know of the 2 or 3 slapping sounds and the 2 three second glances of JS backside that blew up in the face of Penn State's Board of Trustees as they removed Coach Paterno and President Spanier after AG Kelly decided to charge AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz with perjury based on nine no ten year old recollections of a 10 to 15 minute conversation between them and MM.
NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED and PSU assisted The Second Mile in it's mission to help at risk kids. For this PSU has suffered outrageous fortune/ This deliberate misguided AG's tactics destroyed The Second Mile, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Gram Spanier and the reputation of Penn State - none of which was required to remove JS from circulation.
My opinion: Since no victim 2 exists and MM only has suspicion and no proof of his allegation this charge will either be dropped or result in a not guilty verdict due to unquestionable reasonable doubt. These charges should never have been brought and the cost has been disastrous for PSU. Only Jack Raykovitz and the Second Mile were in a position to find a pattern in JS activities. If this had focused on JS and Jack Raykovitz justice would have been done without the cost to a great institution. I doubt a valuable charity could have been saved even under new leadership but it's dead and gone now anyway.
VICTIM 3 - Met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 2000, when he was in seventh or eighth grade. He testified that Sandusky bearhugged him and initiated physical contact in showers. Sandusky touched him through his athletic shorts when he slept over at the older man's home.
This is a charge that will be difficult to prove sexual intent. My opinion is that it is only being considered to add another "victim" to the list in order to establish a pattern. Verdict probably not guilty on these charges.
VICTIM 4 - Testified he repeatedly underwent involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault. The assaults allegedly took place on campus, at Toftrees, a resort where the football team stayed before home games, and at bowl games in 1998 and 1999. Sandusky initiated physical contact through a "soap battle" in a shower. The boy was lavished with gifts.
This is likely one of the 3 or 4 most damaging accounts that will serve up JS to a life in prison unless this witness is very compromised but there is still an 11 to 12 year distance between his experience and what will be his testimony.
VICTIM 5 - Testified that he met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1995 or 1996, when he was 7 or 8. He said Sandusky allegedly took the victim's hand and placed it on his genitals in a locker room shower. He contends his memory is "blurry" in one account.
This is another curious charge that seems designed to make the evidence more damaging by quantity instead of quality. Very difficult to see this resulting in much other than that. This "victim" has claimed "blurry memory" on this event so reasonable doubt is assured it seems?
VICTIM 6 - Met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1994 or 1995, when he was 7 or 8 years old. Sandusky lathered the boy with soap and bearhugged him in football showers in 1998.The boy's mother reported the incident to university police. It was investigated but no criminal charges were filed. The mother confronted Sandusky while police eavesdropped, and Sandusky told her: "I wish I were dead."
Victim 6 is the 1998 incident thoroughly investigated by police and child services. This is not likely to result in a guilty verdict given the evidence gathered at the time an the failure to prosecute. This appears to be a shower only incident.
VICTIM 7 - Testified he met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1994 when he was about 10. Sandusky bearhugged him and cracked his back, showered with him, and put his hand on the boy's thigh.
Victim 7's experiences are not criminal and it is curious that they are part of this except to prejudice the jury. My opinion is this should be excluded and dismissed along with 'victim' 2. What is the criminal element here?
VICTIM 8 - A janitor saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in a football locker room in fall 2000, another employee has testified. The incident was not reported. The boy's identity is unknown. The janitor has dementia and is incompetent to testify.
Victim 8 is another unknown "victim" and the evidence is hearsay and will possibly not be heard in the end. If it is it will be as a second hand account of excitable utterances. Tough to get a guilty verdict on this.
VICTIM 9 - Met Sandusky after he started attending Second Mile activities in 2004. He stayed overnight in the Sandusky home several times between the ages of 12 and 15 starting 2 years after he started or 2006. He described a pattern of sexual assault over a period of years, including oral and anal sex. Sandusky gave the boy gifts and money.
If 'victim' 9 is credible this is the most important testimony in the case. Note this victim seems to run concurrent with Victim 1 some 5 years after the alleged 2001 incident reported by MM. This one has the best chance of success for prosecutors in my opinion because it's fresh and not complicated by the long investigation suffered by victim one.
VICTIM 10 - He became involved with the Second Mile in 1997 at age 10. He testified that he and Sandusky performed oral sex on each other, and Sandusky bought him gifts and took him to football games.
Victim 10 brings the the total of serious charges to 4 of the 10 victims The other 6 have serious problems and only 1, 4, 9 and 10 seem provable beyond a reasonable doubt if the witnesses are credible.
Here is a link to a list from another publication with slightly different language.
When I read over these charges and think about the Attorney General and Governor's reprimands to PSU and Paterno, Curley and Schultz I am angered. She pointed a cannon at PSU and fired several shots with her indictment's of Curley and Schultz for perjury on recollections of a 15 minute conversation a decade past. The AG purposely made PSU look like a den of enablers because two administrators and a football coach did not find MM's two 3 second glances of a naked man in a shower to be definitive evidence of a crime worthy of police involvement.
She didn't even point a revolver at The Second Mile where Sandusky was employed and where he accessed all of his victims or at Jack Raykovitz who was the true enabler of Jerry Sandusky who should have been concerned and vigilant in protection of the 2nd Mile kids.
My contempt for Linda Kelley and the Governor grows every time I see PSU Sex Scandal referenced when any real PSU involvement ended in 1999 when Sandusky retired and this should always be known as The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal.
Will the AG screw around and lose a guilty verdict because she insists on dragging out 6 unprovable victim's allegations to just to spite PSU while failing to focus on the 4 most serious victim's accounts? Will the jury be more likely to view these superfluous extra "victims" as a pattern OR will they view this as a display of the ineptitude of the prosecution thinking if 6 of these are wrong then how can any be right? Since the pool comes from nearby PSU will it be a help or hindrance to the prosecutors to have damaged the university?
No matter what happens I think PSU was sorely misused and abused. So take a look at the charges and offer your comments and vote in the poll all recs, votes, shares and comments are appreciated as usual even as much as this pisses me off. There are most likely some legitimate victims here to consider and even with the presumption of innocence we have to be concerned for their well being. There is a lot to consider and ponder going into this trial week.
UPDATE: a new list of victim characterizations is now available HERE.
A BADLY BOTCHED INVESTIGATION? What do you think about this?
Given the almost 3 years from early 2009 when Tom Corbett as AG started the investigation until Nov 5, 2011 when Sandusky was arrested and charged does it not seem odd that only 4 potential victims were identified. Victims 9 & 10 surfaced after the initial charges were published.
Did investigators not question the staff at The Second Mile to determine which kids seemed to draw the special attention of Jerry Sandusky? Was there not some attempt to go through Second Mile records and contact parents of the Second Mile kids to discover which boys were overnight guests at the Sandusky's or boys who attended games or workouts with the former coach? Was the Second Mile not cooperative? Or were investigators discouraged from using them as a source? No matter what the AG owes an explanation to the public and the victims.

  1. Victim 1 started the Corbett Investigation with serious allegations.
  2. Victim 6 was the 1998 investigation of a shower only
  3. Victim 8 is the janitors account *still unknown victim
  4. Victim 2 McQueary shower incident *still unknown victim - This leaving the 4 below as new
  5. Victim 3 is the hand on shorts in 2000
  6. Victim 7 is the hand on thigh in 1995
  7. Victim 5 is the blurry memory of a 1995 shower incident
  8. Victim 4 gives serious allegations of sexual assault over a couple of years in 98 and 99 *by the way the word is out that the FEDs are going to make Victim 4 a Federal Case
Dissected in this way given a 3 year investigation we get one serious sets of allegations by a known alleged victim - Victim 4. Now there has been a story that potentially 6 additional victims have been found but no additional charges have been brought but these 6 are post 11/5/11. This is somewhat odd given the assertions of AG Kelly and the press about Sandusky. {once again a disclaimer for those who think this exercise is somehow pro-Sandusky - it isn't. I'm just trying to get a handle on the investigation and it's results in a way that makes sense } Is this why there are no victims from Feb 2001 to 2006?
This does not mean that Jerry Sandusky should not go to prison for life for either Victim 1 or Victim 4.This calls into question the competence of the Attorney General's investigation and perhaps offers an explanation for the actions of the Attorney General in going after PSU, Curley & Schultz over Mike McQueary's two 3 second glances. What do you think?