SMSS EXCLUSIVE - We have pictures

SCENES OF THE CRIME SEEN for the FIRST TIME 
by Barry Bozeman, Ray Blehar & the FREEHdom Fighters.

FINALLY after weeks of trying the FREEHdom Fighters have managed to get these pictures for an exclusive release to our viewers/readers. The party that provided these to us wants only donations to go to the Legal Fund that will be used to sue the NCAA and Louis Freeh. Please hit the DONATE button to the right with a small contribution to carry this fight to the NCAA and FREEH.

WE are going to show you 10 images of the Lasch Locker room along with the various versions of testimony under oath of Mike McQueary.about the night of  Feb 9, 2001.

Attorney General Linda Kelly claimed in her press conference last November 7th that Mike McQueary "saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse" in this locker room on the Penn State campus.
Video of the Linda Kelly Press Conference 

Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP for Finance Gary Schultz were charged with perjury for their testimony before a grand jury. After reading this you should decide for yourself who the perjurer really is.


Mike McQueary has testified under oath three times. Once to the Grand Jury, once in the preliminary hearing on the perjury charges vs Curley and Schultz and most recently at the trial of Jerry Sandusky. The full Grand Jury transcript has not been released with the Attorney General citing an "ongoing investigation" as the reason. Despite this "ongoing investigation" the Attorney General did release the entire testimony of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz to be read into the record and transcript at the Perjury preliminary hearing. Why McQueary's full Grand Jury transcript is not available will become as evident as why these pictures were not available until now.

Prosecutors at the Perjury hearing went to great lengths to stop any mention of the testimony of Dr. Dranov or McQueary to the Grand Jury. The reasons for that will be quite obvious as you read this article. Here we will attempt to match the pictures with the various versions of testimony McQureary has given in this case.


This first image is from just inside the entrance to the locker room as if the person entered through the 2 door entrance way and turned to the right.

The entrance involves one door from the hall way into a small foyer and a second door into an area with 2 sinks and a mirror. As you can see the space is quite narrow with approximately 10 lockers on either side of a narrow carpeted area.

McQueary says he was at home watching RUDY the movie on his television until 8pm at which point he was inspired to get some game tapes to watch and while he was going he would put a new pair of shoes in his locker in this locker room for the staff .

McQueary claims to have heard 3 "rhythmic and sexual" slapping sounds as he entered the area but instead of turning toward the source of those sounds, McQueary turns in the opposite direction toward his locker. That seems quite unusual since humans are inclined to turn toward the source of sounds.

But here is McQueary under oath at the Sandusky Trial

As McQueary enters the second door of the 2 door entrance he is hearing these slapping sounds that have to  be coming from the showers. But he does not turn toward the source of these sounds. According to other Sandusky victims "Slap Boxing" is part of the grooming ritual used by Sandusky. 

At the preliminary hearing for the Perjury case Attorney Tom Farrell asked McQueary about these slapping sounds and even demonstrated them in the courtroom by clapping his hands together three times asking if that was what Mike heard. "You got it" is Mike's reply

So Attorney Farrell can clap his hand three times and be "Rhythmic and Sexual"? And since the sounds cease at that point we are to assume the sexual activity stopped?  I hate to be crass or graphic but trying to imagine a 6'1" 225 pound 58 year old assaulting a 70 pound 10 year old via pounding hard enough to create a skin on skin slapping noise is impossible to believe without serious pain and crying out.  There is real difficulty trying to fit this account with reason. 

This image has a finger pointing at the stool directly in front of Mike McQueary's locker where he takes his first glance over his right shoulder to catch a 1 or 2 second glance into the shower area as a reflection off of the mirror located above 2 sinks directly across from the entrance. The door of the locker opens to the right where it would obscure the view back toward the shower area. Mike states that more than one of the showers are running and given the hard tile, glass and mirrored surfaces in the toilet and shower area and the relatively small and narrow area there would be significant noise bouncing off these smooth reflective surfaces. _______ ___It is February so relatively cold air with multiple hot showers would almost certainly mean a good deal of condensation or steam rising up from the floor of the shower area and fogging up any mirror. It seems clear from McQueary's statements that he initially believed these "rhythmic and sexual" sounds to mean there were 2 adults having sex in the shower causing him to feel some embarrassment for being in the locker room 

McQueary voiced these embarrassment concerns and his initial decision to get out of there fast in his interview with investigators Sassano and Rossman. He indicates to them 2 glances into the shower area and the first is a one or two second glance that he says reveals the boy who comes up to Sandusky's pectoral muscles or chest standing upright with feet on the floor and arms out-stretched from the shoulders with his hands on the wall. _____  Notice in this image that only this smallest sliver of the inside of the shower area can be seen from the position Mike says gave him his first reflected view of the boy and Sandusky. Mike cannot see the wall of the shower with the right hand shower head and controls. There are 3 shower heads on the back wall and one each on either end of the shower area for a total of 5 possible locations. None of the wall space where the boys hands would be are within view from in front of Mike's locker. 

So how does Mike see leaning up against the wall from this location? 

From the image above this account given to Sassano and Rossman is not possible. 2 full seconds does not allow time to view repeated movement. 1 one thousand 2 one thousand through a mirror? 

Since the wall beneath the right hand shower head is not visible from this angle Mike cannot see the boys hands or where they are propped. In fact if this is where Sandusky is standing behind the boy all that could be seen from this location is Sandusky's backside. 

These first statements to investigators and the Grand Jury clearly indicate that Mike McQueary did nothing to stop it.  It doesn't get much clearer than "I just didn't do anything to stop it". 

Mike McQueary was hammered in the media and by Gov Tom Corbett for his failure to intervene in the brutal rape of a 10 year old boy. If he turned on his television or read the newspapers and internet about the explosive PENN STATE SEX SCANDAL - he was inundated with talking heads and journalists calling him a coward - the comment sections and message board posts on the internet were even more explicit and angry in denouncing him. 

Investigators and the Grand Jury only heard about these two 1 to 2 second glances. It wasn't until after the initial flood of damning stories and posts that Mike felt the need to salvage his reputation by claiming that he "made sure it stopped". He then concocted the slammed locker door and the 'face to face' with "separated" boy and Sandusky. 

In addition to the "I didn't do anything to stop it" statement, Mike also says "I walked out directly as fast as I could" after his virst view of Sandusky with the boy. See lines 23 - 25 above. So that pretty much destroys Mike's credibility. 

1) He tells Dr. Dranov it's about sounds and a boy showing no distress peeking out around the entrance when a hand drags him inside

2) He tells investigators about leaving directly following his first glance and doing nothing to stop whatever was happening 

3) But something happens and his testimony to the Gand Jury is somehow enhanced into "I saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse" and told Tim, Gary and Joe? 

4) His perjury testimony brings up visualizations and this third view of the boy and Sandusky separated when he becomes the guy who stopped it.

5) So by the time the Sandusky trial comes around he's more polished and confident and the reporters at the trial do nothing to reveal the serious holes in his testimony illuminated by Rominger. 

and 

6) Now we have the 8 million dollar whistle blower who was the red headed hero who stopped a monster and now deserves his reward?

I DON'T THINK SO. 

As we know the first fresh account is usually the most credible. Family friend and doctor Jonathan Dranov tells a more reasonable and compelling story. 

In Dr Dranov's version Sandusky and the boy were likely in the left hand side of the shower room and the boy's head would appear at the left of the shower area entrance where an arm would then pull him back inside. Dr. Dranov asked Mike three times "what did you see"?  And three times Mike just came back to the sounds. 

Dr. Dranov's testimony is of great significance. Mike's father was the first person Mike saw and spoke with following the locker room encounter and Dr. Dranov a very close second. This account is very credible because it makes the most sense given these photographs. Anyone trying to hide their activity from inadvertent discovery would pick the shower heads to the left hand side of the shower area 

t

It is quite easy to visualize a boy's head appearing around the left hand side of this shower area entrance and an arm reaching out and pulling that boy back inside. The left hand shower is the most protected from anyone who might walk into this public locker room facility giving Sandusky time to disengage and avoid any overt appearance of contact. 

And it is clear from the first glance position that Mike could not have seen the boy's hands against the wall because the wall cannot be seen from that first vantage point by his locker. 

If Sandusky was foolish enough to subject a 10 year old to painless anal rape as Mike claims, it is only the second position he describes that would afford him any view of what Mike says he observed. By moving a few feet toward the showers and crossing to the other side of the locker aisle Mike would have had this point of view. 

A 1 or 2 second glance from this viewpoint would offer this view of the far right wall and shower head. For these two brief seconds Mike could have observed Sandusky directly behind the boy and one of the boy's hands on the wall. But did that happen as he finally got around to explaining on his 3rd attempt to tell the story a decade after the event? I guess you will have to decide the credibility issue. 

And finally we have the latest "I slammed the locker door" - a lot less compelling when we now know the locker doors are wood instead of noisy metal - version, with the "I then moved toward the showers and saw them 5 feet apart"/ The first view is of the sink 3 paces from the last position and the second the view from that location. 

I personally don't see 5 feet of space for the separation Mike now claims do you? And I certainly don't see how any view of a naked man from this distance would fail to expose the existence of an erection? 

Mike's multiplying man in the shower stories are interesting in their evolution over time. Mr. McQueary's various versions have enhanced his role and made him a goat or a hero depending on your knowledge of the particulars and details of these accounts. 

One thing is certain. The Attorney General claimed, falsely according the Mike, that he used the phrase " anal intercourse" to launch the media frenzy against Joe, Tim, Gary and Penn State. Then John P Surma cancelled Joe's press conference and he led the charge to remove Joe from his long reign as head football coach. Nothing could have had more impact in making Joe Tim and Gary the scapegoats by signaling the world that they must be guilty if their own Board of Trustees were throwing them under the bus or into the media tsunami. 

To top it off the Board hires disgraced former FBI director Louis Freeh to write another fictional indictment of the man who had made Penn State into the Success With Honor program where academics and athletics co-existed, player's graduated and the NCAA never had cause for concern. John Surma, Tom Corbett and the Board of the untrustworthy did that to Penn State mainly based on the Mike McQueary story. 

Now we can actually SEE for the first time how tenuous that story is based on these views of the SCENE OF THE CRIME.  The reason the public has not seen these photographs is now quite clear. The photos don't fit the prosecution and media narrative. They cast serious doubt on the credibility of the McQueary story. 

So it's Mike's word against Tim Curley and Gary Spanier on the 8 million dollar question and these images cause significant doubt of the credibility of one Mike McQueary. What he says he saw cannot be seen. There is nothing like images to spark the minds eye and focus the attention. So who is guilty of perjury? Can we finally get to the realization that Joe Paterno was a good and decent man of honor and integrity. You can decide for yourself who Mike McQueary is and how it is these pictures fail to show us what he says he saw. I guess we have to wait and see if another version comes to light. Want to change that story one more time Mike? How about a story of prosecutor's coercion? 

A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION with Diagrams put together by Ray Blehar available at this link. 

You can move through the pertinent slides at 2 second intervals to duplicate the McQuery testimony. 

PLEASE DROP A COUPLE OF BUCKS IN THE DONATE HAT AT THE TOP RIGHT FOR THE FOLKS WHO PROVIDED THIS FIRST EVER VIEW OF HE SCENE OF THE CRIME - your $$$ will be used to help fund a lawsuit against the NCAA and Louis Freeh.  -   the FREEHdom Fighters.