The McQueary Evolution

by Barry Bozeman

 In the wake of ESPN's Outside the Lines and ESPN the magazines article "THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S LAST STAND", I am revisiting my thoughts about Mike McQueary and his pivotal role in what became the Penn State Sex Scandal. 

The first comment I ever made on the Penn State/ Second Mile/ Sandusky revelations came the day of Linda Kelly’s Press Conference on Nov. 4 2011. As an active participant on the Tennessee Scout sports forums I injected a comment in a long thread of people literally calling for McQueary’s head on a pike. The anger and hatred of McQueary was visceral. “How could a big strong football coach in good shape fail to step in and kick the crap out of an old man who was raping a 10 year old boy”?

Well I could not wrap my head around it either so I felt there must be something else going on and I knew the true nature of a Grand Jury Presentment. Knowing that presentment was not an unassailable statement of fact I tried to caution my fellow Volunteer fans to reserve judgment until all the facts were in. That seemed to be a big mistake. People were angry. Angry at Penn State, at Joe Paterno, at Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and very angry with Mike McQueary.

If Linda Kelly’s goal was to destroy Penn State and Joe Paterno in the court of public opinion, she succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. If this was the reaction on sports forums for the Tennessee Volunteers it had to be the reaction across the country on similar forums. I’m not sure why I thought there was far more to this story than seemed evident in the PA Attorney Generals presentation but I became intent on finding out. That led to the creation of this weblog and a long history of exploring the case. 

I actually felt sorry for Mike McQueary. I thought he must have been an abused child – possibly abused by Jerry Sandusky. I tried to imagine how shocked I might have been if I had seen what the Presentment claims he saw. But over time I came to a much different conclusion concerning McQueary and his role in this entire affair. There is no question that Mike McQueary was used by the Office of the Attorney General to make The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal into the Penn State Scandal. The only question I want to consider now is whether he was a willing participant, a coerced participant, or and unwitting dupe.

Over time much thought and effort has been focused on attempting to understand what McQueary actually saw. Linda Kelly’s presentment stated this “most credible” witness “SAW a boy being subjected to anal rape” by Jerry Sandusky. McQueary has made it clear that this overstates his observation. This website was the first to obtain and publish pictures of the locker room where this took place. 

What we do know about that night is that McQueary phoned home and then left the Lasch building to meet with his father and family friend Dr. Dranov that night. The following morning he had a 10 minute conversation with Joe Paterno. And several days later he met with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz to tell them what he had observed.

Even if we can accept that McQueary was so freaked out by what he saw or thought he saw at the Lasch building that he could not react in a manner to protect the child that Kelly says he observed being raped, can we accept that condition made it impossible for him to convey the nature of the heinous crime to his own father and long time family friend Dr. Dranov?

McQeary says the child's height in comparison to Sandusky placed his head at the pectoral muscles of Sandusky's chest.

Here is the point where McQueary's description of the end of his observation becomes important. McQueary says he faced the boy and Sandusky standing a couple of feet apart both observing him. He does not say the child showed any discomfort or surprise much less any fear, pain, embarrassment, or horror over whatever had happened. How is it possible that a small child of that size would not be in pain or greatly distressed if those slapping sounds were a big man driving himself into the child? And perhaps more importantly, how could a grown man desert a small child who was fearful or in pain to the person who was responsible for that situation? 

Three vs. Ten: Unequal Justice Under the Law

If There Was A Cover-Up of Jerry Sandusky's Crimes, Then Why Weren’t All TEN Conspirators Charged and Held Accountable?
by
Eileen Morgan

By 2001, Jerry Sandusky had retired from Penn State to work full time at his charitable youth foundation, The Second Mile.  Sandusky founded The Second Mile in 1977 to help underprivileged youth reach their full potential.  On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

On July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh declared in his report that the senior officials at Penn State conspired to cover-up Jerry Sandusky’s child molestation to avoid bad publicity.  A ‘cover-up’ is defined as ‘a concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public.’  

Penn State’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky Sex Scandal precariously pivots on the 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.  We know that Mike McQueary walked into a locker room on an evening in February, 2001 and saw Sandusky alone in a shower with a young boy from The Second Mile.  Mike McQueary, who was upset by what he "saw," called his father, John McQueary, to convey what he just witnessed.  His father did not instruct Mike to call the police but rather to ‘come home.’ 

The McQuearys and Dr. Dranov Discuss the Incident

Mike then came home and spoke again to his father and family friend, Dr. Dranov, about what he had seen just moments earlier.  John McQueary was a physician assistant and CEO of a physician’s practice.  In their respective professional positions, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse.  If they failed to report suspected child abuse they would face criminal charges and jail time.  Dr. Dranov testified that on the night in question he asked Mike, “What did you see?”  Mike kept going back to the sounds. Dr. Dranov repeated the question, THREE times in total, “Mike, What did you see?”  But Mike kept going back to the sounds.  Dr. Dranov also testified that the only visual account Mike relayed was that he saw ‘a boy look around, made eye contact, and then an arm pulled him back.  Mike looked again and saw Sandusky walking out of the shower.’  Because Dr. Dranov was a mandatory reporter, his repeated questioning was to clarify if a crime had been committed so that he would know whether or not to call the police and report Sandusky’s crime as mandated by law. 

Mike McQueary, the elder McQueary, nor Dr. Dranov called the police that night.  There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no crime witnessed or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Report to PSU Officials

The following morning, at the insistence of the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary went to the home of Joe Paterno to tell Paterno what he had seen the night before.  Paterno then relayed the information to his superiors, Tim Curley-Penn State Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz-Penn State VP of Business & Finance, who oversaw the University Park Police, and they, in turn, relayed the information to Penn State President Graham Spanier.  Curley and Schultz then met with McQueary to hear the account directly from him.    Based on the information and details from McQueary, the three officials (Curley, Schultz and Spanier) agreed that Curley should report McQueary’s account to Sandusky’s employer, The Second Mile.  Paterno, Curley, Schultz, nor Spanier called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Second Mile Gets The Report

The Second Mile’s Executive Director,  Jack Raykovitz, a licensed psychologist and mandatory reporter who was responsible for the children at the organization, took the information from Curley and discussed it with two board members of The Second Mile and the three of them decided it was a non-incident.  Raykovitz nor the other two board members called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the hearsay witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

Chart of 2001 Sandusky Shower Incident

McQueary- Eyewitness
                John McQueary – hearsay witness
                Dr. Dranov – hearsay witness
                Joe Paterno – hearsay witness
                Tim Curley – hearsay witness
                Gary Schultz – hearsay witness

Graham Spanier – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)

Jack Rakovitz-2nd Mile CEO – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)
                          
          Second Mile Board Member #1 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

          Second Mile Board Member #2 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

In all, 10 men were directly or indirectly aware of the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.

Was This A Cover-Up?

The actions/testimony of all the hearsay witnesses was identical.

If there was a cover-up to conceal Sandusky’s crimes, then they would necessarily be acting in concert.  John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier testified that no criminal sexual act between Sandusky and the child was reported to them by Mike McQueary.  None of these men called the police when the incident was reported to them and their testimony validates why they did not call the police. 

If there was a cover-up, there would have been an effort to conceal the incident.  However, the facts show that each man McQueary talked to reported the incident to other individuals up the chain of command. 

If John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were covering up for Sandusky’s crimes, then they would never have told Mike to report the incident to Paterno. 

If Paterno wanted to cover-up for Sandusky’s crimes, then he would not have reported it to Curley and Schultz.  Not only did the hearsay witnesses not conceal the information, but Curley reported it outside the university to the CEO of The Second Mile.  If the Penn State Officials were concealing Sandusky’s crimes they most definitely would NOT have reported the incident to additional people, let alone The Second Mile.  To share this information with other individuals outside of their circle would have relinquished control of their cover-up putting them at high risk of being exposed.  The PSU officials’ actions were the antithesis of the actions of a cover-up.  In addition, McQueary testified that he told other individuals about the incident and that he was never told by any of his superiors not to tell others.  “Neither Curley nor Schultz ever told me not to talk about this to others.  Neither of them made any effort to prevent me from talking to anyone in the world.”

Since the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov are mandatory reporters and did not report the incident, one can only assume that they believed Mike did not witness child sex abuse by Sandusky.  Each of the men, Mike McQueary, John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier, were concerned that Sandusky was showering alone with a child and they each reported it to a person up the chain of command they thought would best handle the situation given the information and facts they had at the time.  Sandusky was confronted about the incident and told that it was inappropriate to shower with children.

So, what was the reason why the eyewitness, along with the other nine hearsay witnesses, did not call the police?  Were the men conspiring to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse? 

The preponderance of evidence clearly says NO.  The reason no one called the police was because no crime was witnessed by Mike McQueary.  The evidence, actions and testimony of all the individuals involved clearly prove that there was no effort to conceal the 2001 shower incident, at least up to the point that The Second Mile was informed. 

The problem with the State’s case against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, is that neither John McQueary nor Dr. Dranov has been charged with perjury, failure to report, or conspiracy.  This can only mean that the State believes their testimony to be credible and true.  If Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier acted in the same manner as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov (not calling the police) and testified similarly as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov regarding McQueary’s account, then why has Paterno been blamed and why have Curley, Schultz, and Spanier been charged with perjury, child endangerment, and conspiracy, yet John McQueary and Dr. Dranov have not? 

All six men received the same account from McQueary.  If there was a conspiracy to cover-up then ALL the men were in collusion and should be held accountable.  Since the State does not believe John McQueary or Dr. Dranov broke the law, then they certainly should not be charging Curley, Schultz and Spanier with breaking the law. 

Either all the men broke the law and are at fault or none of them are at fault.  This is an egregious injustice by the state of Pennsylvania.  The Attorney General’s haphazard methods of applying the law in this case must be exposed.

Finally, Mike McQueary filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Penn State in October, 2012.  In that lawsuit there are no claims by McQueary that he was forced to conspire with Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier to conceal Sandusky’s child abuse crimes.  Certainly McQueary would have filed that charge in his lawsuit to assure a victory and maximum payout.  This clearly proves, in addition to the other evidence, that there was no such concealment by Penn State officials to cover-up for Jerry Sandusky’s crimes as alleged by Louis Freeh’s Report. 

House of Cards Rests on McQueary's Faulty Memory

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

By
Ray Blehar

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

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

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

His testimony went south after that.

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

What He Said, Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What He Said, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who He Told, Part 1

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

From page 62 of the Preliminary Perjury transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

Who He Told, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Year Anniversary - We Know the TRUTH

Significant updates concerning Cynthia Baldwin have been added to this one year anniversary post but this story needs to remain intact in order to cover that disastrous week in Nov. 2011 and the events leading up to that week. We can now refocus our efforts and reacquaint ourselves in the wake of the election with the horrible injustice done to Joe Paterno and PSU administrators by the now replaced Attorney General and the current Governor along with the Board of Trustees and Louis Freeh. Their actions should not go unchallenged and opposed.  Barry Bozeman FREEHdom Fighter  

"Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Dr. Graham Spanier conspired to cover up allegations of child abuse by failing to report an incident witnessed by Mike McQueary in order to save the PSU football program from bad publicity." 

Remember Remember those Days Last November 

The BoT Treason and Plot 

by Barry Bozeman 

Kelly links AD Curley and VP Schultz
to Jerry Sandusky with perjury charge.  

The nature of business and political power in a our system can sometimes lead to terrible consequences. The collusion of common interests from Governor Tom Corbett and his appointed successor as Attorney General Linda Kelly, his long time acquaintance ripe for a 6.5 million dollar payday Louis Freeh, and a group of the most influential members of the PSU Board of Trustees is what we might expect it to be. Things have worked out as they have, not because these people conspired to undermine justice but by the very nature of their relationships it is simply in their best interest - selfish self interest - to behave as they have. "Enlightened" self interest is not always just and it does not lead to the truth or fairness. That's part of the conflict between corporate and business interests and an interest in truth and justice. 

INTERACTIVE - PARTICIPATORY BLOGGING with PICTURES.

You be the Jury - Here is my case with an opportunity for you to present yours. 
by Barry Bozeman

WE have challenged certain statements and charges involving Presentment of the Attorney General, The Freeh Report, the Perjury Charges against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and various other contentions by the Media, the PSU Board of Trustees, the Governor and the NCAA. The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website and the FREEHdom Fighters invite your participation as we test the verisimilitude of certain theories and hypotheses. 

AS AN EXAMPLE:  Your challenge with this first test is to read the following material and to offer any alternate theory you wish to compose and we will cover it. 

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.

Did Mike McQueary Perjure Himself?

WALTER UHLER - DID MIKE MCQUEARY COMMIT PERJURY 

On 12 June 2012, defense attorney Karl Rominger conducted a devastating cross examination of Mike McQueary in the course of attempting to defend the indefensible Jerry Sandusky. The actual transcript of that cross examination was not released until 21 September 2012, which explains why virtually nobody, except Barry Bozeman on The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website, has written about the deliberate deception Rominger exposed.

Mike McQueary - Reality Challenged?

I've been slogging through the Mike McQueary testimony and the cross-examination of Karl Rominger for a couple of days now and it's tedious going. 

I can't quite decide which is worse - McQueary's obfuscation and sometimes obvious evasion - pretending he doesn't understand the question OR Rominger's bizarre seemingly purposeful ineptitude and lack of focus.  

Dr Dranov's Testimony - Transcript

THE TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHNATHAN DRANOV in Transcript is now Available 

We can now see word for word what Dr Dranov said that convinced the jury to find Sandusky not guilty on the prosecutions claim that Mike McQueary SAW a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe, Tim and Gary.

Mike McQueary heard sounds "of a sexual nature" SOUNDS!!!!

Mike McQueary was asked three times by his doctor - if he SAW anything Sexual "I kept saying what did you see and he kept coming back to the Sounds"

FOUR WORDS in 10 min. & 3 Vague Curley Emails Mr.Costas

I tried to watch Bob Costas interview with Joe Posnanski again early on Saturday and once again I could not stomach it. I made it about 10 minutes in or maybe less when Costas said paraphrasing - 

"it is unrealistic to believe in a community as small as Penn State and State College to believe that Joe Paterno did not know about the 1998 investigation of Jerry Sandusky - and knowing that he failed to take the statement of Mike McQueary seriously enough in 2001 - a terrible unfathomable mistake" 

Gee Bob - I'm a bit confused. The PA Department of Public Welfare followed up a Centre County Youth Services inquiry into a complaint logged by the Mother of Victim 6 - as we have come to know him - with the PSU Police Department. The mother was concerned because her son came home with wet hair after working out with Jerry Sandusky and taking a shower. 

The FREEH FICTION COVER UP - Animation

A personal note about this effort and "who we are". Framing Paterno dot com is a collective effort of 5 of the most active writers who oppose the Freeh Fiction and the Lies of the Grand Jury Presentment - and thus the Board of Trustees members who supported Freeh and the NCAA. We KNOW that the Freeh Report is exactly as Judge Lewis said it was on Wednesday - a MYTH - and a "blundering indefensible indictment". We have known this since it was made public and we had a chance to review it's contents. 

This video is one tool to expose the Freeh Fiction for what it is. Judge Lewis's blistering critique is another as are the pages of this website. Please use this site and it's links to your advantage in spreading the word about how incredibly unequivocally inaccurate and morally reprehensible Freeh's Fiction is. The Truth is in here and on the other Framing Paterno sites. 

We do this for no pay and no reward other than the reward that comes from doing the right thing.


This video animation NEEDS TO GO VIRAL NOW - SHARE IT EVERYWHERE 

Do you want to HELP US FIGHT THE FREEH FICTION?
join us now with these simple ways to get in this fight.

The FREEH REPORT is a MYTH

The Complete Critique of the Freeh Report available here 

Here is what Former Federal Judge Lewis offered as Truth against the FactFreeh Fiction 

Tim Lewis, a former federal judge and federal prosecutor, and an attorney for Spanier, called the report a "blundering and indefensible indictment" of the ex-president.

"There is nothing ... full or complete about the Freeh report as it applies to Dr. Spanier," Lewis said.

He called the Freeh report "a myth."

Where's Perjury? The Perjury Challenge for $100.00

The rather famous Where's Waldo would put it like this:

We however are given the full transcripts of the Grand Jury Testimonies of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who are charged with Perjury for some statements made in this document found on pages 178 through 235 of the Perjury Hearing Transcript. This is all the prosecution can use to prove Perjury - a willful statement under oath known by the witness to be untrue. 

The prosecution is using these statements trying to recall what was said in a 10 minute meeting between Mike McQueary and AD Curley with VP Schultz in February of 2001 - a decade prior to the Grand Jury testimony. Prosecutors evidently intend to use the testimony of Joe Paterno on pages 174 thru 178 of the same document to corroborate Mike McQueary. This is an 85 year old football coach trying to recall what Mike told him in a separate 10 minute meeting 10 days prior to the McQueary meeting with Tim and Gary. 

My opinion is that this prosecution is frivolous and is extremely prejudicial for these reasons:

• This prosecution serves no purpose other than to cast aspersions on PSU and Paterno 
• It relies on memories of a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past.
• There is no recording of the meeting so exact words will never be known
• It relies on judgment of how Tim & Gary interpreted what they heard from Mike. 
• Statements made are recollections and impressions not ability to recall specifics.
• Charges rely on definitions not commonly held by defendants & McQueary
• Statements cannot be removed from context of the defendants opinion of Sandusky at the time. In light of recent events things that seem obvious now were not clear or even considered then. 
• The prosecution has not made available the testimony of Dr. Raykovitz or Dr. Dranov. Testimony that likely tends to support the defendants.  
• Statements made by Tim & Gary concerning the meeting with Mike include the disclaimer "I cannot recall specifics" or words to that effect. 

This is the Perjury Challenge: I expect it to take a normal person no more than 2 hours to review the statements in the Transcript - pages 174 thru 235. The print is large, double spaced, and only a very few of the pages contain any information about the 10 minute meeting and what was said during that meeting. Most of those statements are already identified and laid out in this Article along with the full text of the Perjury Law in PA. The statements of Joe Tim and Gary are preceded by John McQueary's testimony pages 133 thru 157 and you are welcome to use that as "corroboration" if you choose. Pages 5 thru 114 contain the testimony of Mike McQueary and you can use that testimony to try to prove perjury.

I believe Mike's statement "I would have said extremely sexual and I think it was intercourse" In speaking with Tim and Gary is the pertinent statement relied on by the prosecution and found here in Mike's only answer concerning what he said to Tim and Gary

It was Tim's statement that he never heard intercourse or extremely sexual from Mike

Gary Schultz gave his impression of what Mike was trying to say 

So we get the disclaimers "I don't recall what McQueary specifically reported" "My impression was" and "I cannot recall the specific conversation and how Mike said it" - with these statements trying to recall a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past. Is that perjury? 

Mike could have said "I think it was sexual but all I got were one or two second glances and I expected to see two adults having sex since the 2 or 3 slapping sounds informed my visualizations. 

If Mike's 5 or 6 minute description of what happened that night (see the first image above) included these last statements about visualizations and one or two seconds how might that inform Tim & Gary about the nature of Mike's story? I know it would make me think he could likely be mistaken if he "would have said extremely sexual or thought intercourse" 

So here's the challenge to anyone who thinks they can build a solid case for Perjury that will convince a majority of BSD readers in a poll that this trial will end in conviction based on what we know as of July 12 2012 after another Perjury Trial Hearing on July 11 when we may know something more. 

Some believe the leaked email snippets will support the perjury charges since they indicate that Tim Curley took what Mike alleged seriously enough to look into the situation by contacting JS, Joe, and Dr. Raykovitz and that a bill from attorneys for 3 hours of legal research shows they knew they were dealing with a reported sex act that left them vulnerable. You are welcome to use this information in building a case for conviction of Tim and Gary. 

You will provide your case for conviction to me via email and I will add my argument for the defense. The result will be posted on The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal site and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Forum and on BSD with a poll that will say vote YES if you believe this is a valid case for convicting Tim and Gary or Perjury or NO if you do not. Submissions receiving a majority of YES votes will be polled to determine the most popular of them and that submission will be awarded the $100 via check or PayPal 

With all the lawyers on here complaining of being out of work this should be a way to gain some cash for 2 hours of effort. 

PLEASE POST COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE ON THE FORUM HERE

For BSD Attorneys and Laymen - You be the Defense

How would you defend Tim Curley and Gary Schultz against the charges of perjury brought by the Attorney General? OR if you prefer how you would convict them as a prosecutor. 

Can the Perjury Trial also be used defend Joe Paterno and Penn State by not only clearing Tim and Gary of Perjury but in the process making their decision in 2001 seem reasonable and nothing like a cover up? Once you have built your case that Tim and Gary did not perjure themselves can you address the larger issue of what they were told by Joe Paterno?
Joe did nothing to discourage them from reporting to authorities
They asked Joe his opinion based on 30 years or working with JS. 
Joe had no reason to think JS could harm the kids he seemed so intent on helping and the 1998 information he heard made him less likely to think JS was a pedophile because he was cleared.

Roberto and Farrell be using the 1 or 2 seconds and the visualizations along with the "I would have said" testimony from the Perjury Hearing to discredit Mike's claim of what he saw and would have reported as an  extremely sexual act
Mike's description of feet on floor, not bent over, very little motion, boy's height relative to JS will be demonstrated with pictures or mannequins 
First a large male of JS height with a boy standing beside him top of head level with pectorals
Then the boy facing a wall upright with hands outstretched
Then with the man behind him

THESE ARE THE WORDS UNDER OATH IN TESTIMONY BY MIKE McQUEARY 

You can use these as a start or go to the transcript for others to find statements that cast doubt on what Mike saw and what he said
                                         VISUALIZATIONS and I WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE page 56 line 14

                                                 A SECOND OR TWO GLANCE    page 12 line 12              

                                            MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS  page 14 line 17

                          SLAPPING SOUNDS BEFORE GLANCES NO SOUND DURING  page 15/16

WHAT MIKE WOULD HAVE SAID? 

DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK - WAS NOT SURE 104

 DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER CONTACTED BY AG p 57

 VERY CLEAR IT LOOKED LIKE INTERCOURSE 

 NOT SMART TO MAKE A RECORD? p 89

Joe's Statement under oath at Grand Jury 

Curley Testimony Under Oath Grand Jury

 

Schultz's Statements Under Oath Grand Jury

Farrell and Roberto can be quite effective using Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony. 
His claim of 3 slapping sounds being either rhythmic or sexual can be tested?
Play sounds of wet hands on a shower room wall
Wet feet on a shower room floor
Wet hand slapping a bare stomach or thighs in a shower
and ask if any or all of those sounds were like what he heard?
What makes them "rhythmic" or "sexual"? 

What did he mean about those "visualizations"?
Why did he only glance for 1 or 2 seconds?
Why did he think the boy did not cry out or show pain or distress?
Did that make him question his suspicions?
Why didn't he question the decision when informed?
How did he live with it for a decade without protest? 
How can a 6 foot 4 man of JS size rape a boy only as tall as his pectorals if the boy is not bent over and has his feet on the floor?

A PERJURY TRIAL IS ABOUT EXACT WORDS. 

Why did he say "I would have said" or "I thought" instead of I told them and I saw? 
What were Mike's exact words?
Why didn't he protest the decision if he thought he saw a rape?
Could Jerry have been grabbing the boy from behind to stop him from running around or falling?
Could you flash pictures like these of  a man and boy on a screen for 1.5 seconds each
A) A man picking up a boy after a fall
B) A man grabbing a boy to prevent a fall
C) A man trying to mimic sodomy from that position 
and ask Mike to say which one was the sodomy? 
Can that be done in a deposition? 


What questions would you use and how would you go about clearing Tim and Gary and as a result clearing PSU and Joe Paterno in the most effective way? OR If you prefer to be the prosecutor please show us how you would prove perjury at the Grand Jury using the link just below. 
The Pennsylvania Perjury Statute - the state must prove Tim and Gary said something they did not believe was true in their Grand Jury Testimony that is available HERE Curley p 179 thru 204 Schultz 204 - 235 

 § 4902.  Perjury.
        (a)  Offense defined.--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 affirmation, or
     swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when
     the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
        (b)  Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of
     the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if
     it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.
     It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
     falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is
     material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
        (c)  Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to
     prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was
     administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the
     declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document
     purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when
     the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to
     have been duly sworn or affirmed.
        (d)  Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense
     under this section if he retracted the falsification in the
     course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became
     manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and
     before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
        (e)  Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made
     inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation,
     both having been made within the period of the statute of
     limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the
     inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the
     alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by
     the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the
     prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one
     or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be
     true.
        (f)  Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section,
     except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a
     statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony
     of a single witness.

Please Add Your Comments to the discussion here : The Second Mile Sandusky Forum 

McQueary Testimonies and Contradictions

THE WHOLE STORY OF THE McQUEARY TESTIMONIES

 

ACCORDING TO KNOWN FACTS

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.

McQueary Story Changes Again

McQueary Testimony Changes - Moves 13 Months Forward in Time
by Barry Bozeman

This could really change everything for PSU in the Sandusky case. and this should truly concern all PSU alumni, students, and supporters. Court paperwork filed Monday, by prosecutors says the alleged sexual incident McQueary claims to have seen between Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. It happened Feb. 9, 2001, about 13 months earlier. This puts at least part of the case beyond the statute of limitations.

Senior VP Gary Schultz Perjury Fiasco

The Perjury charge against VP Gary Schultz are based on his Grand Jury Testimony and they are lacking any merit whatsoever.
First we have to remember this testimony is about recollections of a 10 to 12 minute meeting with Mike McQueary and Tim Curley about 10 days after McQueary's 45 second visit to a locker room in the Lasch football facility on the Penn State campus. McQueary's testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing for the Perjury and Failure to Report charges gave us the following information:
McQueary heard 2 or 3 slapping sounds he characterizes as "rhythmic and sexual"
McQueary "glanced" into the showers through a mirror for 1 or 2 seconds
McQueary then moved to where he could glance into the showers directly and he saw Sandusky's back and the side of a boy standing in front of Sandusky. The boy's head came to Sandusky's pectoral muscles. He saw this with little or no motion for 1 or 2 seconds.
McQueary then slammed his locker door and walked to where Sandusky and the boy could see him. They were standing 4 feet apart and there was no pain or distress on the boy's face
McQueary said nothing to either and immediately left the boy there with Sandusky and went upstairs to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they had left.
McQueary then met with his father and Dr. Jonathan Dranov at his father's home. They advised him not to call police but to report the incident to his boss Joe Paterno
McQueary did not tell Joe Paterno what he suspected in graphic detail
McQueary then met with Schultz and Curley after Paterno set up the meeting.

McQueary claims he was adamant about suspecting a sexual act in his meeting with Curley and Schultz. Curley and Schultz indicate their rather vague recollections of the 12 minute meeting did not indicate that a crime had been committed. The Attorney General wants us to believe this difference in recollections of that meeting 10 years ago constitutes perjury.

As you scan through the images of the testimony click on an image and you will be able to see it in full readable size and you can use this utility to click through every image. I have provided the pages of the transcript that deal with the recollections and impressions of the meeting with McQueary, Curley, and Schultz so you can try to find the perjury.

First lets look at Schultz'a Testimony to the Grand Jury read into the record at the Perjury Preliminary Hearing:

Shultz's memory of a 10 or 12 minute meeting a decade back is quite different than Curley's recollection. He believes that either he or Tim contacted Child Protective Services - the same agency that investigated the 1998 incident when a mother of a Second Mile child complained to police about a shower incident between her son and Sandusky.

In the interest of this post I want the reader to identify the statements by Schultz above that constitute Perjury. What has he said above that is misleading or a deliberate lie known to him to be such?