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

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.

Monday, October 24



by Barry Bozeman

PART 1 of Not So Common Threads Series

Politics & Religion are touchy subjects when it comes to attempts at unity. That is why I have waited some time to publish this entry. At this point, it has become difficult to see any downside in discussing the connections involved in this series. 

The following "Not So Common Threads" essays consider connections that have not been explored. These connections may be evident to some and less obvious to others. Did certain political interests see Graham Spanier and Penn State climate scientists as an impediment to their plans?  What role did religion play with Louis Freeh when he was hired to do harm to the credibility of your university using the accusations against its football coach, President, and culture? 


My opinion of Opus Dei has been strongly influenced by the film The Breach - about Louis Freeh's FBI and Agent Robert Hansen and The Da Vinci Code with albino numerary assassin Silas and his mentor/handler head of Opus Dei - Bishop Manuel Aringarosa. 

LATE ADDITION: I should have mentioned the Norman Mailer penned MASTER SPY: THE ROBERT HANSSEN STORY a four hour tour-de-force with William Hurt as Hanssen. That time scope gives far more detail concerning Hanssen's strange conviction of his 'intellectual superiority' redeemed he says by his wife who made him convert to Catholicism and pushed him into Opus Dei when she discovered his treason. 

I was introduced to OPUS DEI through those films and once introduced I read as much as I could online about Opus Dei - most of it confirmed my impressions gained from the films 

Opus Dei members have been described as Priests without parishes and vows of celibacy, the most devout of Roman Catholics who seek to do everything in the name of Christ while going through normal daily life in a variety of professions. Robert Hanssen is shown visiting his Priest with his wife and becoming Opus Dei to atone for his "sin" of accepting money for secrets from the Russians.

The scenes of daily life in the Hanssen household -gleaned from family members and visitors are eerie. Hanssen scoffs at a female FBI agent in a pantsuit saying women should wear skirts. He attends Mass daily, prays the Rosary at his office crucifix but secretly videotapes sex with his wife and shares the tapes with a friend in the military. A local strip club and the Catholic Bookstore are common stops and he takes a stripper with him to Hong Kong and purchases a Mercedes for her but never takes her to bed. 

While betraying his country, Hanssen was a devoted to Opus Dei. With the Soviet money, Hanssen put his children through Opus Dei-approved private schools. Hanssen believed that his children “might in the future be part of a holy war that would merge God and country, whose leaders would then ban abortion, divorce and other evils of the world that he and Opus Dei opposed.”   

Opus Dei is known as "the Work of God" or "the Work". FBI Director Louis Freeh is known to be close to Opus Dei. According to Rev Robert Bucciarelli Opus Dei Priest.  Freeh’s children attend Opus Dei schools and Freeh knows Opus Dei members like former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as members of the Work. Scalia’s wife is reported to be an Opus Dei member. So membership and affiliation with Opus Dei is a serious commitment central to the daily lives and worldview of adherents. 

How Freeh's Opus Dei Affiliation Fits 

We all know how this came to be known as the "PENN STATE" Scandal. The Surma co-opted BOT accepted a Presentment by AG Linda Kelley, now known to be a bald-faced lie, as unassailable truth. There are other acts of treason in history that rival 11/9/11, but few so clear cut and egregious as the BOARD OF TRAITORS breach of fiduciary duty represented by that decision. 

We came to learn why John Surma did it.THE SURMA VENDETTA and THE SURMA VENDETTA PART II. None among us can find a valid reason why Surma should not have recused himself from that decision instead of leading the drive to dismiss Joe Paterno after learning of this clear conflict of interest. 

We know about Tom Corbett's UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and why Corbett and his appointees should have recused themselves or supported Spanier and Paterno as the two individuals who could have commanded enough respect to make the media and the public aware of the facts in the face of AG Kelley's sensationally erroneous presentment and the media tsunami that engulfed Penn State.  

We were even made fully aware of how Louis Freeh was inflicted on Penn State in just one week after that Nov 9, 2011 disaster. A mere 4 hours of interviews of only 2 candidates by the CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN team were revealed on SMSS. 

        WHAT I MISSED IN NOV. 2011.  

But I missed an article in ESQUIRE that wondered:  
What the choice of former FBI director, Opus Dei running buddy, and cutthroat careerist Louis Freeh to lead Penn State's investigation into itself as regards the Sandusky scandal would come to mean to the people involved. 
It all depends on two factors the writer mused:
1) How often Freeh's finely rehearsed performance-art public morality comes into play; and 
2) What result will be best for Louis Freeh, secular saint, and avenging angel?

As it has turned out Freeh based his entire finding on his self-serving moral superiority. He now admittedly, had no evidence to support his conclusions. It was the "failed culture at Penn State" and an "omnipotent head football coach" indicted and skewered in the court of public opinion over a mere 2 email fragments mentioning "coach"

The Esquire writer now seems downright prophetic with his observations. Freeh pocketed 8.2 million Penn State dollars for trashing the university as a failed culture without ever having to interview the key witnesses to the charges he made or any requirement to justify his results. Freeh was all moral outrage hat with no evidence cattle. 
As Esquire points out: 
"Freeh has a long history of Opus Dei morality. He was the cilice around Bill Clinton's upper thigh because Freeh disapproved of a president having non-Vatican-endorsed sexy time with a young woman. Freeh's FBI railroaded Wen Ho Lee because Freeh was convinced that the Clintons played loose with national security secrets because of Chinese political contributions. Another charge with no basis in fact. 

In 2005, Freeh wrote a book explaining how he, the righteous moralist Louis Freeh, stood alone against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He absolved the FBI of involvement in the framing not only of Lee, whom Freeh still believed to be guilty of espionage, but of Richard Jewell, the innocent man Freeh fingered as the 1996 Olympic Park bomber. 
Freeh was perfect for the heavily Corbett influenced Special Investigation Task Force - an Opus Dei affiliate out to eviscerate non-priest child molesters and redeem the moral standing of his Church in the wake of decades of priest pedophiles. Joe, Graham, Tim and Gary never had the chance for a fair unbiased investigation by this angry righteous Opus Dei scold. A PSU version of Tomas de Torquemada, Freeh would have preferred the rack and wheel ending with a burning stake.   

Freeh's investigation could not be his preferred inquisition but the report would be his sermon as avenging angel striking back against the priest pedophiles who besmirched the reputation of his church. The Spotlight on pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Priesthood was focused by The Boston Globe, Mea Maximum Culpa, Deliver Us From Evil  and the tidal wave of stories across the country exposing priests who were pedophiles.                               CONTINUED BELOW

Friday, October 21

Letter: Put focus where it belongs

I wrote this email in response to a recent PennLive column by Charles Thompson which made the conclusion that Penn State officials failed to report the 2001 incident to police and child welfare.  Thompson did the same on a column he wrote just days earlier and has repeatedly done the same throughout his reporting on the Conspiracy of Silence and related cases.   I wanted to share the email with readers of the blog because it reveals information that Thompson and others refuse to report about the case -- namely, that the Commonwealth can NEVER prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that PSU officials failed to report Sandusky in 2001.  The reason they cannot prove it is because the Pennsylvania child protection system's employees routinely screen out reports of abuse against alleged perpetrators who have been previously cleared.   This is the untold story of the Sandusky case and it is not being told because the media would rather get clicks by writing columns about Joe Paterno than actually serve the public -- and protect children.

You know as well as the rest of the world does that there has not yet been a trial for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.  As such, you really should stop reporting the charges against Spanier, et al, as conclusions and correctly state them as allegations. 

This sentence of your column requires a correction:

The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they did not take McQueary's report to police or child welfare officials.

Please correct to state:

The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they allegedly did not take McQueary's report to child welfare officials.

Also, please note that "to police" should be removed from the sentence because the Commonwealth's  August 16, 2016 filing states that Schultz IS a law enforcement official.  

Clearly, by the Commonwealth's definition, Curley, and by virtue of the reporting chain, Joe Paterno, reported the 2001 incident to law enforcement. 

That certainly takes much of the wind out of the Patriot News' and the NCAA's allegations that PSU athletics was involved in a cover up. 

According to the grand jury transcripts read into the record on December 16, 2011, Gary Schultz made seven statements to the effect that he or someone else at PSU reported the incident to child welfare authorities.  Again, this testimony is buttressed by an email from Wendell Courtney (see page 84 of the Freeh Report) stating that he believed someone at PSU reported the incident to child welfare.

As I noted in my email to you yesterday, the Commonwealth cannot disprove Schultz's (or Courtney's) assertions. Nor has the Commonwealth ever brought forth a witness from Centre County CYS, such as an intake worker from 2001, that can positively state a report was NOT made.  Moreover, the Jarrod Tutko Jr. case and the recent report by PA Auditor General Eugene DePasquale buttresses Schultz's argument that a report was or could have been made and "screened out" by child protective services.   

My investigation, in which I spoke with families from Centre County, revealed that "screening out" typically occurred when abuse charges were brought against an individual who was previously cleared by CYS for abuse and who had been awarded custody of a child by the Centre County courts.   

Obviously, those scenarios would apply to Sandusky because he was approved for several adoptions by the courts, including a contested battle over Matt Sandusky, whom he allegedly molested.  Also,  CYS cleared him of wrong-doing in 1998 in a case involving TWO boys and during that investigation Sandusky admitted he had similar contact with others.    

Given the facts above, it would be highly unlikely for CYS to initiate an investigation of Sandusky in 2001 for a similar incident involving a single (unknown) boy.  

Again, look at the Tutko case.  Numerous calls from neighbors, emergency room personnel, and teachers in which Dauphin CYS ignored -- resulting in a child paying the ultimate price.   Unfortunately, this is typical in Pennsylvania's system.

I understand the Patriot News' desire to continue to promote a narrative of a cover up at PSU because no one ever wants to admit it got its Pulitzer prize winning story wrong.  However, the longer your newspaper continues to focus on PSU, the more that children in PA will suffer because of a disastrous child protection system.

I hope you and your newspaper will do the right thing, start reporting the (inconvenient) facts, and finally put the focus where it belongs.

Ray Blehar

Wednesday, October 19



by Barry Bozeman

This week's Big Game is Mike McQueary vs Penn State for alleged defamation resulting in a lack of coaching job offers. Did Penn State harm McQueary's chances in the wake of the Nov 2011 indictments against former PSU coach Sandusky, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and VP Gary Schultz?

Today is the 3rd day of testimony and witnesses have offered explanations for McQueary's lack of job opportunities. PSU's defense claims McQueary's inaction when he claims to have seen or heard something between Jerry Sandusky and a boy of 10 in a locker room turned off the potential customers for his services. 

Either McQueary witnessed a sexual assault and failed to do anything about it, or he was confused about what he heard and "visualized" it as a sexual assault. Either way, his actions or inaction has been the cause of his lack of offers according to some.

McQueary blames this statement from Graham Spanier for his inability to land a job 
But there have been reports of something other than the 2001 Sandusky situation and the 2011 fallout from the November ambush that have been raised by ESPN and other media outlets.

3/04/14 Don Van Natta Jr.
 "At Penn State, buddies dubbed him Mr. State College because he projected a squeaky-clean image. But some who knew him then insist it was a facade. "He always kept up this appearance of the star quarterback, the model guy," says a close friend from those days. "But he was far from it." 
According to several of his classmates and teammates, McQueary developed a compulsive gambling habit at Penn State. He bet and lost thousands of dollars on poker and sports wagering, mostly on pro football, though he also bet, several of his former teammates say, on Nittany Lions games. One former teammate specifically recalls that Big Red bet and lost on his own team in a November 1996 game against Michigan State at Beaver Stadium. With McQueary serving as a backup on the sideline, favorite PSU won on a late field goal 32-29 but didn't cover the eight-point spread. 
As his losses mounted, McQueary owed thousands of dollars to a bookie, a debt that was eventually erased by his father, several people say. A college friend recalls urging McQueary to slow down. "It got pretty bad," the friend says, "and it just kept snowballing and snowballing. He was very impulsive." 
Whether Paterno or his assistants were aware of McQueary's gambling isn't known, but several teammates and former coaches say they doubt it. By all accounts, McQueary was fooling fans across Happy Valley -- and pulling the wool over on Paterno. "I love Joe to death," says a woman who worked for years in the football office. "But in a lot of ways, he was clueless."
Shortly after this ESPN report Deadspin joined in with this on 03/05/14
"In 1995, Mike McQueary threw a touchdown late in garbage time of a Penn State blowout over Rutgers. Then-Rutgers coach Doug Graber and Joe Paterno got into a shouting match after the game because Graber thought Paterno was running up the score. The touchdown put the 20-point-favorite Nittany Lions up 59-34. None of this is interesting at all but for a tiny anecdote about McQueary's gambling habit while enrolled at Penn State, buried in ESPN's profile on the Penn State whistleblower.
 Any late score can seem like more than a coincidence when it takes money out of your pocket, and sports betting is full of conspiracy theorists, but this is at least interesting. A Penn State alum, who was there during McQueary's playing days, told that he recalled hearing rumors about McQueary's gambling, but never believed them. Then he read Van Natta, Jr.'s story and remembered the Rutgers game.
 It sounds good, but that's how these things work. There's never a smoking gun—the absence of which you can use as proof that nothing is rigged or proof that everything is rigged really well—and always another explanation, but this is more than your typical crazy-play-allows-team-to-cover-late story. This is a guy with an alleged gambling problem—including betting on his own team—coming in for mop-up duty and immediately covering the spread with a 42-yard touchdown pass in a game that was over."
It "doesn't take a Rocket Scientist" as Mike McQueary said to his father and Dr. Dranov that night in Feb 2001 to figure out that rumors this specific are completely deadly to anyone on a coaching job search. No university is going to offer a person accused of betting on his own school's games with much less evidence than is available on ESPN and Deadspin.

And to top it off even THE NEW YORK TIMES got into the act: 

Monday, October 17


McQUEARY “I Would Do Anything for Joe Paterno”

continued from McQueary Seeks Big Payday

Will Mike McQueary be the hero or the goat in this final chapter of his role in the sports scandal of the decade? Will Mike's legacy be the destruction of the Success With Honor legacy of Joe Paterno? Or will Mike finally redeem himself and become a key pivot point in the restoration of Joe's legacy?

The Whistleblower Trial this week is one last time Mike McQueary can prove his high regard for Joe. This trial will be covered by significant numbers of the media so Mike can finally do what he should have done in Nov. 2011 by:
  • Telling the media to tell the world "I did not tell Joe I saw “anal rape”.
  • Telling the media of 45 seconds and 2 1 or 2-second glances.
  • Telling the media of "visualizations" and imaginings from "slapping sounds".
  • Telling the media the boy showed no distress - made no sound.  
  • Telling the media that Frank Fina and Linda Kelly completely misrepresented his words in the Presentment Lie that ruined Joe's reputation when they wrote:
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno.
And if Mike truly wants to help his Alma Mater and his community:
  • Mike can publicly denounce the Office of Attorney General that claims to seek justice for victims, for failing children by never investigating the Second Mile
  • Mike can demand the media hold the PA OAG accountable for failing the child victims of The Second Mile - an agency they were responsible for monitoring - and State agencies that should have exposed Sandusky long before 2001.  
In Nov 2011 when his team, coach, school, and community were under assault due to a LIE attributed to Mike, he failed to do the right thing. Mike had been elevated to a position of honor and respect as QB of the Nittany Lions and had capitalized on that success by becoming a part of the coaching staff.

In Nov. 2011 everything Mike was raised, groomed, and worked hard to become was destroyed when Mike failed to do the right thing and tell the world that what Kelly stated in the Presentment was a lie. A lie he knew was destroying the reputation of the man he says he loved. The man who had given him the opportunities that resulted in the identity that defined him.  

This wasn't about being a coward in 2001 in that locker room. That was a fiction Fina created with Kelly when they chose to take Mike's "visualized" imaginings and make them into - Mike SAW Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy and told that to Joe Paterno, in order to sensationalize their case and make PSU into the primary enabler and villain.

No Sound - A Belief 
Mike had told them the boy made no sound - showed no fear or distress. Does that seem to indicate a 200lb 6' man had been brutalizing a 10 year old boy? That is likely a key reason the jury in the Sandusky trial returned a "NOT GUILTY' verdict on Kelly & Fina's charge of involuntary deviate sexual assault. The jury saw the Truth. Mike did not see what he believed. A 'belief' Mike? Did you do this to Joe and PSU due to a belief? 

These were your words Mike. This is your testimony under oath. 

You claim to have been a "whistleblower" in 2001 but you could not even convince your own father and Dr. Dranov that what you say you believed was true. If what you 'believed' was true it was cause to immediately call the police to see if this little boy - still with the monster who you believed had just raped him - could be found and rescued. 

Even when we can understand any initial shock, the idea that you were unable to go to that boy's aid with the help of your father and Dr. Dranov is "unbelievable", in the same way as your inability to go to the aid of the man you say you loved - Joe Paterno. 

Dranov JS Trial 
Dr. Dranov testified that you "saw an arm reach out of the shower and pull the boy back". and you said "the boy showed no fear or distress". You testified "NO WAY" when asked if you told anyone an arm reached out . 

Why would you lie about that Mike? Did you forget what you told Dr. Dranov that night? Or has your memory improved with time? Three times Dranov asked you what you saw. Three times you told him "I heard these sounds" and never did you tell your father or Dr. Dranov "I saw JS sodomizing a boy". Instead, you said 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist".

Was the honor and trust bestowed by the positions of QB and coach violated when Mike chose to gamble on PSU games? Did Mike fear being exposed for something else? Or was Mike threatened with prosecution of his father or Dr. Dranov for failure to report? 


Any open appeal to Mike McQueary. Please understand how you are being perceived.


It seems to me that Fina and Kelly made you out to be a coward. Instead, it seems clear you were confused, suspicious, and distraught that you might have just missed seeing something. Your testimony indicates you expected to see a sex act. 

You heard what you interpreted as sexual slapping sounds attributed to adults in a shower. You "visualized" adults engaged in a sex act - and in the two 1 or 2-second glances when you glimpsed anything in that shower you expected to see a sexual act. How you expected anyone to think 3 slapping sounds can be "rhythmic" or "sexual" is puzzling. 

TWO GLANCES 1 or 2 Seconds Each
45 seconds - the total time you testified you spent in that locker room.

Two 1 or 2 second glances - the total time you observed anything in that shower.

Click images to enlarge

There is no fault in confusion or suspicion.
The fault was a failure to make what 
happened that night clear - to your father, Dr. Dranov, Joe, Tim, or GaryThe CRIME against Joe and PSU was your failure to publicly state the truth when the LIE in that Presentment was all the public knew. 

Joe and PSU were under assault because the public believed that you saw a child being sodomized and told Joe exactly that. Mike, you know that is not the Truth -yet you watched your university, team, coach, and community vilified as a culture of football crazed pedophile enablers led by a demigod - all because of you.  How do you live with that? How do you live with 10 long years between Feb 2001 and some time in 2011, while you remained mute? 

Now you have the opportunity to redeem yourself, Mike. Now you can tell the media and through them the world the TRUTH. Tell them it was 45 seconds total time in the room and two 1 or 2-second glances that made you suspect the worst because you had "visualized" a sex act in your mind and believed you were witnessing "some kind of intercourse".  You have already testified on the record to those facts. 

Now is the time to begin a process to rehabilitate the reputation of the man you say you love and the team and university you are sworn to honor. Linda Kelly is no longer in power. Frank Fina is a disgraced email porn king. Whatever hold they had on you to maintain your silence is gone and you can tell the world how you were pressured and why.

When you do that you will erase those claims of cowardice for running out on a rape victim. You can become the man who exposed the lies of Kelly and Fina and who initiated the reversal of the erroneous and damaging narrative instigated by two corrupt prosecutors out to make a name for themselves by destroying a man of honor. That can be your legacy. Instead of the goat, you can become the hero of your own story.  

Please consider that Mike. The testimony is already out there. 

Anyone with TV or Internet access in Nov. 2011 could not escape the images of Joe Paterno surrounded by cameras at his home or the PSU football practice facility in the wake of the malicious premeditated libel deliberately designed to evoke outrage in a language that inspired maximum media coverage. The Presentment Victim 2 stated:
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno. 
Yes, this act of malicious contempt for truth and justice did involve the misuse and abuse of Mike McQueary. Yes, he was victimized by the State of PA in the form of Frank Fina and AG Linda Kelly. Kelly and Fina are certainly to blame. But Mike McQueary could easily see what was happening to the man he to this day says he loves - the coach he still says he would do anything to support. McQueary has said those words to friends who have spoken to him. Maybe Mike is capable of honoring Joe deep down but we need to reach that desire in him.
follow me below the break 

Friday, October 14


Mike McQueary - Joe Paterno - Jerry Sandusky 
by Barry Bozeman - UT (Tenn) Grad with no ties to PSU. Liberal Dem UT fan born on campus - attended UT games as an infant - active in campus politics as class & frat pres., -no shred of bias toward PSU or Paterno. Like Pat Summitt at UT, the winningest coach in college basketball history with a statue as well, Joe was an iconic figure. Pat became the face of UT like Joe was the face of PSU. I created this SMSS site because I saw a grievous injustice at work from a rabid media anxious to bring down a legend they worked so hard to create. 

Does McQueary deserve enmity and scorn as a coward who failed to protect a defenseless child? OR Is Mike McQueary a college football gambling cheat who bet on PSU football games as a player and coach losing thousands of dollars who sees a way out of his destroyed career as a coach nobody will ever hire? Or both? Or is Mike the "whistleblower" a public servant cast off by unscrupulous PSU administrators?

The eve of the McQueary "whistleblower" trial is an opportunity to take a fresh look at a massive store of information. This is some old and new information with a fresh take from my unbiased perception.  
This repetition of events may seem excessive to some. Going over the same ground becomes an exercise in futility as we seek an answer to how this could have happened to PSU and iconic Coach Paterno. If one thing seemed certain in Happy Valley, it would be the lasting unsullied reputation of the Hall of Fame Coach. The shock of the events of Nov 2011 stunned many PSU people into numb submission as Gov. Corbett and John Surma ambushed the Board of Trustees. 
That November 2011 Presentment by Attorney General Linda Kelly, with some damning testimony concerning a former coach in a staff locker room in 2002 (or was it 2001?) was incomprehensible. 
With all the available testimony from depositions, hearings and the Sandusky trial - things said by Mike McQueary, things Dr. Dranov claimed he said, and the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz versions - it is very difficult to imagine how McQueary can be considered credible. His versions of what happened one night some 14 (or was it 15*) years ago have changed often and have been related and misrelated too many times to count. 
*In fact, the prosecution had the date wrong by 13 months in the original Presentment:
"In court paperwork filed Monday, prosecutors say the alleged sexual incident the former assistant Penn State football coach claims to have seen between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. Instead, they wrote, new evidence shows it happened on 2/9/2001, about 13 months earlier."

McQueary testified to hearing "rhythmic sexual slapping sounds" in a staff locker room one winter night. And then, depending on which version of events now on the record from McQueary and family friend Dr. Dranov that you believe, McQueary either: 1) saw nothing but "heard sounds", 2) saw "something sexual" or "something extremely sexual", or 3) saw a "sexual assault" by Sandusky on a boy of about 10.
PA Attorney General Linda Kelly stood on a stage in Harrisburg with her posters of Jerry Sandusky - who retired as PSU coach in 1999, belside two hapless PSU administrators, Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz. Using these posters she accused these men of equal culpability with a serial pedophile. Sandusky, the creator of The Second Mile charity, was employed by TSM when this alleged assault occurred. This damning account was supposedly based on the words of Mike McQueary, and Linda Kelly presented this as Mike's account:
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught."
This staged AG Kelly news conference in Harrisburg touched off a firestorm of interest and a tsunami of media speculation. Initially, a tremendous amount of anger and accusation was pointed at Mike McQueary. How could a strong young former PSU QB watch a 10-year-old being anally raped by an old former coach and run away? Then the media focused outrage on the 'football culture of omnipotent demigod Paterno' and the administrators singled out by AG Kelly for charges. 

This was a PRESENTMENT I thought. Do these media people not get that a Presentment is the State laying out, in the most damaging terms possible, charges based on testimony never subjected to cross-examination, exculpatory evidence, or legal representation? Nor was it presented in full quotes - only a summary of the prosecution's chosen interpretation stated in the most damaging possible terms. I wrote this in An Outsiders View Nov. 2011.  

I was captivated, and I did not buy the AG's version of events despite the media's willingness to do so. But then on 11/9/11, the PSU Board of Trustees, threw iconic Joe Paterno and the PSU administrators under the bus in a stunningly stupid decision. Did they know something I did not? Well that's crazy I thought, of course, they did. 

Wasn't Gov. Corbett, the former AG, part of that Board? He would know what was coming. 

Some inside information from Corbett must have made this move to eliminate Joe and eventually the single member of the BOT who stood up for his administrators and the coach, the smart thing to do. I guess I'm just not that smart, I still had questions. Discussions concerning these events raged for days on PSU sports forums where my participation was almost constant. Information came to light that increased my doubt in the media's versions of events. 

But enough of the past - after 5 years of immersion in this situation we come to today and this attempt by Mike McQueary to wrest 5 million dollars from Penn State. 

below the break a Q&A