Part 2 of a series of diaries to expose a serious injustice done to Coach Joe Paterno and Penn State University by the Republican Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania. These in no way diminish the bulk of charges against Jerry Sandusky. I believe that eight identified victims will offer sufficient evidence to convict Sandusky and put him in prison for a long long time. But the "Victim 2" charges that have implicated Joe Paterno and Penn State presented in the Grand Jury Presentment have misled the media, the Board of Trustee's and the public in order to advance Republican political careers. The Victim 2 section of the presentment is a LIE. I am a University of Tennessee alumni with no love for Paterno or Penn State but I abhor this injustice and since the media has failed to offer the truth someone has to expose this injustice. My apologies for the length and my verbosity but this is a complex issue with many facets.
"It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but you can lose it in a minute" Will RogersThe Grand Jury Presentment made us think that Mike Mcqueary was EAR witness to a sex act. Mike only observed Sandusky and the boy for 1 or 2 seconds in direct view of Sandusky's backside that blocked any view of genitals or hands. So it had to be the "rhythmic slapping" sexual sounds that made him so certain of an "extremely sexual" situation did it not? How does one infer sex from a back and an embrace that could be just a hug or wrestling or an attempt to prevent a fall when there is little or no motion, unless some previously heard sounds lead one to expect sexual activity?
The Grand Jury Presentment reads:
"He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity"This was a key part of a 45 second locker room visit where the Grand Jury who validated the Attorney General's presentment claimed Mike "saw" a boy being subjected to "anal intercourse". We have learned that is untrue. But those Rhythmic Slapping Sounds surely must have had something to them because the actual glimpses of the Sandusky back were so abbreviated. A rhythm of slapping that could only come from sexual activity is what I first thought must have made Mike so certain. That rhythm coupled with the glances might add up to something -
but there were only 3 claps
How does one get a RHYTHM of sexual activity from 3 claps I wonder?
Some obvious questions for the Attorney General.
1) Can anyone reading this actually arrive at a reasonable understanding of how any 3 slapping sounds could become "rhythmic slapping sounds believed to be sexual activity"?
2) If anyone came to me and said they suspect a crime after a 2 second glances of a back and 3 slapping sounds and expect me to call police - would I? would you?
3) Have the Attorney General and Grand Jury overstated their case in the summary of Mike's testimony to cover up some inaction by the Governor or the Attorney General over the past three years since Victim 1 came forward?
4) Why was the Governor accepting campaign donations from Second Mile and board members in large amounts during the investigation?
5) Why aren't Second Mile officials and board members being investigated?
6) Why are you so focused on the rather flimsy victim 2 testimony when you have not found this victim (or have you and know he was not abused that night) ?
The Perjury Hearing Transcript keeps yielding little gems of misconduct by prosecutors in the inflammatory rhetoric of the (dubious) FINDING OF FACT.
This summary of his testimony had to come from a head full of hallucinogenic substances because it did not come from the substance of Mike McQueary's Perjury Hearing testimony under oath. Mike used the word "rhythmic" but what is sexual or rhythmic in 3 slaps? A 3 second glance of a back and 3 claps yield this graphic description?
He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the Graduate Assistant put the sneakers in his locker he 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." "He testified in the Grand Jury in December of 2010. The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistants testimony to be "extremely credible."If the Attorney General has no Rhythm can she dance to a conviction on misrepresentation?
The accurate way to have described McQueary's testimony is this is it not?
He then heard three claps or slaps his wild imagination thought might be sexual activity. As he put sneakers in his locker he glimpsed for 1 or 2 seconds the back of an adult male through a reflection in a mirror above the sink in a room adjoining the showers. Moving for a direct view he glanced for 1 or 2 seconds the motionless full backside of Jerry Sandusky mostly blocking the view of a young boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years of age. Sandusky's arms were around the boy who's hands were on the wall. Both were standing up and the boy's feet were on the floor. He could not see genitals or the location of Sandusky's hands. He slammed his locker door and walked to a point Sandusky and the boy could both see him. They were stood a few feet apart and stared at McQueary. He left the boy standing in the shower with a naked Sandusky and went upstairs to an office to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they were gone. He said nothing to the boy or Sandusky. He did not offer help to the boy. He did not question Sandusky. The Grand Jury found this testimony inconclusive.Mike McQueary DID NOT SEE ANAL INTERCOURSE - we know this from his Perjury Hearing testimoy. So why did the Attorney General's office describe it that way?
Perjury Hearing Transcript - 2 glances of Sandusky's back 1 - 2 second duration each
Sandusky's Body blocking view of genitals and hands.
The more is revealed the worse the Attorney General, the Board of Trustees and the media look. Simply describing accurately the testimony of Mike McQueary would have avoided so much of the media frenzy and outrage directed at Penn State University and Joe Paterno. Truth and accuracy are always best unless one is out to tarnish well earned reputations to promote their own political ambitions or to distract public opinion from some failing on the part of the Republican Governor and Attorney General? Governor Corbett accepted $25,000 from Second Mile while his office was investigating Sandusky and thousands more from Second Mile board members.
The Attorney General through the distorted and misleading Grand Jury Presentment along with a gullible media and the complicity of the Board of Trustees did much to destroy Joe Paterno's lifetime of well earned reputation. What about the reputations of Second Mile board members and the Governor who was investigating Sandusky as Attorney General while accepting the charitable contributions of Democrats and Republicans as campaign funds? If I had donated money to Second Mile to help underprivileged children I would not like to hear my money was paying for Corbett's campaign. And how many more boys suffered during the 3 year investigation? Is this a cover up not involving Penn State using Penn State as the cover?
Additional thoughts about the response the the rather incredible McQueary testimony
Following the March 1, 2002 incident Mike told 5 people some version of what he experienced and that was not that he "saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse."At minimum at least 4 different versions of Mike McQueary's statements to these 5 men have surfaced in the press. The most disturbing to thinking people is the version attributed to the testimony of Dr Jonathan Dranov M.D who was along with Dr. John McQueary M.D - Mike's father - the first to hear the story within an hour of the event.
His father Dr. John McQueary M.D
Family friend Dr Jonathan Dranov M.D.
Head PSU football coach Joe Paterno
Athletic Director Tim Curley
Senior Vice President Gary Schultz
On the night in question and in the few days that followed Mike told different stories to 5 educated and respected men in positions of responsibility and none of them thought his story worthy of being reported to police or child protective services. Why not?
With the benefit of hindsight and a 40 count 23 page summary of allegations designed to justify an indictment, some people are certain 10 years later the police should have been called? People who do not know Mike McQueary. People who did not hear his stories within minutes, hours and days of the event are certain? Have you considered the possibility that Mike's story was simply so insubstantial it did not make sense to those who heard it?
Evidently Dr Dranov upon hearing the first story advised Mike NOT to call police. Dranov asked Mike three times if he saw sexual activity and three times Mike said NO according to a source who knows Dranov's testimony before the Grand Jury. Wonder why the presentment failed to mention that?
GOOD GRIEF - are those of you who think that these men erred by not calling the police gifted with some superior insight? Or do you think there was some common interest shared by these 5 responsible educated men that had to be protected by a cover up enabling a child molester?
Or is the simplest explanation the most credible? Mike's stories just didn't seem 'extremely credible' to the one man who knew him best or Dr. Dranov, or his head coach. So why should they have seemed credible to Curley or Schultz?
Maybe it's because 3 slapping sounds is NOT evidence of a sex act and to hold it out as that seems, well quite frankly, crazy?
Perhaps it was because a 3 second glimpse of a back is NOT evidence of a sex act?
Not one of these 5 good men thought it was advisable to contact police or child protective services. Why? Because they did not find anything "extremely credible" about Mike's suspicions
I believe that Jerry Sandusky is a clever and devious pedophile. I do not defend him in any way. I do not question the 8 victims who have come forward to bravely testify against him. I pray for them to be healed and vindicated for their bravery.
The VICTIM 2 section of the presentment is what I question based on under oath testimony by Mike McQueary and the statement of the defense that the alleged victim 2 will testify he was not sexually assaulted or molested in 2002. If he was not these victim 2 charges will most likely be dropped but not before a vast majority of the media and public decided that Joe Paterno and the people at Penn State were some kind of Pedophile enablers. Dropping those charges will not right the wrong done to Penn State and Paterno. It is this probable outcome that prompts me to write these diaries because I believe most people think Joe Paterno and Penn State guilty of some cover up. Is that correct? Is that what you believe based on what you have read?
Most of you have already rushed to judge them. But if you try to put yourself in their shoes in 2002 when Sandusky is a respected charity founder and foster father of six, before you read the Grand Jury Presentment or any of the stories in the media based on the lie about the victim 2 charges you may arrive at a fairer perception. If you do you will have to see Paterno and Penn State in a less judgmental view. Sandusky was a very clever and devious predator who covered his tracks with a reputation for good works and there is no way Paterno or PSU officials could have known that at the time.
And Mike McQueary did not see anal intercourse. as the presentment alleges. Instead he told several different stories about what he saw. You must see that lie is the initial inflammatory statement that led to the extreme vilification of Paterno and Penn State in the media.
My previous diary brought instant vilification and cries of "pervert" who "defends child rapists". This is exactly the unhinged and holier-than-thou demonizing I write to condemn. People who wrote these comments rushed to judge Joe Paterno and to condemn him and the good people of Penn State. I am still standing up for what I think is necessary and right. We are progressive Democrats - not some judgmental fear and blame Republicans. We seek the truth and justice not the lynch mob and destroyers of reputations. At least that's what I always thought. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe we are no better than the liars who use their power to vilify and destroy.
This is the second of three diaries on the subject and you should see them all before you rush to judge the situation.
On why this Sandusky Sex Scandal became the Penn State Sex Scandal
The Words and Motives of Republican Attorney General Linda Harris will be the third.