Part 1 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. The media has failed to offer the truth so someone has to expose this injustice and the unforgivable lack of fairness by the media that has condemned Paterno and Penn State in the court of public opinion.
This overview based on all available evidence after the Perjury Hearing on Friday Dec 16th -this is the whole story in as small a nutshell as I can make it.
There is NO Penn State Sex Scandal.
If the Grand Jury Presentment had simply accurately described Mike McQueary's testimony as "strong suspicion of sexual activity based on a brief glance in the shower and 3 slapping sounds" instead of he "saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse", do you think Joe and PSU would have suffered the vilification of the media and public? That is the first question you need to answer.
Based on this distorted and misleading Grand Jury Presentment and Perjury Hearing Testimony under oath by Mike McQueary; we can derive the simplest explanation for what transpired in Mike's meetings with Joe and then with AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz.
I don't particularly like Joe Paterno and care nothing about Penn State football, but the rush to judgment that is destroying the reputation of a 61 year long rather exemplary career got my attention so I have studied every thing I could find about this situation. I am appalled by how little opposition has been shown by any media outlet to the obvious distortions and downright lies that launched this rush to judgment.
How accurate, graphic, and believable was McQueary when speaking to Joe Paterno? What did he and Joe say to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz? If MIke handled his talks with them like the light cross-examination at the Perjury Hearing I believe their reaction would have been: There is no reason to call police when the only suspicion is based on two 1 or 2 second glances of Jerry's back and 3 slapping sounds that did not confirm a criminal act. Reporting suspicion is not required or even advisable. This will be a leap for some of you but a long review of the hearing testimony makes this conclusion compelling.
Penn State people and Joe Paterno are unfairly cast in this travesty. Perhaps you will understand the magnitude of the travesty at the end of this explanation.
First you have to know what the media was too blind to find out or report. A Grand Jury Presentment is a summary of allegations designed to justify an indictment. There are no quotes, no Q&A, no exculpatory evidence, and no cross-examination. The defense is not represented in any way and the prosecution asks only questions they know will support their theory of the case. The actual document is written by the Attorney General's office and only requires 12 or 23 members of the Grand Jury to pass. It is not a "FINDING OF FACT" it is the most damaging and damning version of the prosecution's case. An in this particular Paterno/PSU situation it is a lie yet the media reported it as unassailable FACT.
This Penn State travesty is all about 4 seconds (or less) broken into two 2 Second (or less) glances of the back of Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a young boy 9 years ago, one 10 minute early Saturday meeting between Mike and Joe, and one 10 days later for 10 or 12 minutes with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. This is the full extent of the distorted molehill that brought down Joe Paterno and tarnished PSU because of the Grand Jury's misleading presentment and the media's complicity for reporting distortion as unassailable fact.
FOUR SECONDS (or less) - and 2 (or less) of those through a mirrored view of upper bodies and 2 (or less) a direct view of the back of Jerry Sandusky. Due to three slapping sounds that preconditioned him to see a sex act Mike McQueary is 'certain of something extremely sexual'. So he ends a 45 second locker room visit leaving a naked boy with his presumed attacker?
These Perjury Transcript images are over sized. Click them to see the entire text.
TWO 1 OR 2 SECOND GLANCES
Mike describes the boy's height as 'his head was at Sandusky's pectoral muscle". Sandusky is 6'2 and weighs over 220 lbs - the boy 4' to 4'6" weighing 70 as an average 10 year old. Both are standing erect and the boy is not yelling or screaming or showing distress or pain. Mike saw "no insertion" he "did not look down there" , he saw "no pain" or distress on the boy's face, he saw them "not bent over" but "standing up" all in two short "1 or 2 second glances" and he left the naked youngster in the shower with the naked Jerry Sandusky --See (appendix C) -Tweets of Testimony Under Oath.
BODY BLOCKING ANY VIEW OF GENITALS
STANDING UP - NOT BENT OVER - FEET ON FLOOR
How is anal intercourse even possible in these positions and how could there not be extreme distress and pain?
Saturday morning MIke spends a mere 10 minutes with Joe Paterno. Mike does not use "saw" or "anal intercourse" that show up in the misleading presentment but expresses his "discomfort" over what he thought might have been "something of a sexual nature".
This weekend before Spring Break Joe Paterno calls Tim Curley saying an upset Mike saw "inappropriate horseplay or something of a sexual nature". 8 days later there is a "10 to12 minute meeting" between Mike, Tim and Gary Schultz. Only the three of them know what was said.
Based on conflicting testimony the state brings perjury charges against Curley and Schultz because recollections from a meeting 9 years previous about a 45 second locker room visit differ. A meeting without witnesses, notes, recordings or any indication of lying on purpose makes a very weak perjury case.
That's IT - that is all there is. No other events in the Sandusky Case have anything to do with Paterno, PSU President Spanier, Curley or Schultz, yet Paterno and Spanier have been fired and Curley and Schultz charged with perjury and Penn State vilified as an institution harboring pedophiles and covering up to protect a football program?
I suspect Mike McQueary confronted with evidence of multiple victims in 2010 determined to help prosecution any way they wanted because he harbored the guilt of leaving a naked boy with an alleged pedophile who stands accused of abusing multiple victims. Mike is a good man guilt tripped, misquoted, and used by prosecutors to get PSU and Paterno in the case. His reconstructed memory of long ago events is now altered by recent revelations but even that memory does not add up to observation of a crime.
We can argue about how inappropriate it is for a 60 year old man to shower with a 10 year old boy - but that is not a crime.
The prosecution has not identified the boy from the night of March 1, 2002 to our knowledge. The defense for Sandusky says the boy in question has indicated that "he was not a victim"*(appendix B)
Can you honestly say that you would involve police if you had not read the misleading Presentment and knew Sandusky only as founder of a great charity and foster father of six, based on Mike's suspicions of three slapping sounds and a 2 second glances? That's the second question you need to answer.
If I heard Mike describe his experience as seconds viewing Jerry's back in what he was not 100% certain was sexual I would not involve police. What would I tell them? A graduate assistant glimpsed naked Jerry's back for one or two seconds and thought it might be "extremely sexual"? No I would call Sandusky for an explanation and the name and number of the boy just as Tim Curley did.
Is this some episode of the TWILIGHT ZONE come to life in Happy Valley? A mountain has been made from the distorted molehill of the Victim 2 charges.
1) Grand Jury Presentment describes the 3 second glance molehill as "anal intercourse" seen by McQueary - A LIE - Mike did not testify to seeing anal intercourse.
2) The Attorney General's office writes a misleading victim 2 section and deliberately choses to hide that distorted molehill in a mountain of other evidence. (the 40 count 23 page presentment)
3) Then the prosecution leaks or presents this mountain with the distorted molehill to the MEDIA without the slightest description of what it truly represented offering Mike as the "EXTREMELY CREDIBLE" witness. If Mike is "extremely credible" why was he misquoted? The third question you need to answer.
4) The MEDIA then creates a range of Himalayas out of the few seconds described as the "saw".. "anal intercourse" molehill. Failing to question the nature of the presentment and producing dozens of stories as unassailable FACT they report "GA saw anal intercourse Paterno and PSU ignored and covered up" creating the non-existent PENN STATE SEX SCANDAL. see the APPENDIX A below
Consider this one my UP YOURS to a misleading Attorney General, a back stabbing Board of Trustees, and the media that bought distortions like WMD's in Iraq, because they KNEW this victim-less (D) few seconds deserved the full attention of police in advance of the 23 page 40 count misleading presentment
I pray the victims testimony will put Jerry Sandusky where he belongs while fearing the prosecutions distortions might give the defense a 'reasonable doubt' issue that could damage their case. I expect to hear the victim 2 and perjury charges have been dismissed prior to trial due to lack of evidence.
APPENDIXES
(A) Exact text of the Grand Jury Presentment - A distortion of Mike McQueary's testimony as clearly stated under oath at the Preliminary Hearing on the Perjury charges. Mike did not see anal intercourse and was not "100% sure" of anything. That is already reasonable doubt by the "most credible witness".
(B) The defense for Sandusky says the boy in question is willing to testify that "he was not a victim"
(C) Tweets of Testimony from Friday Dec. 16, 2011 Perjury Hearing and Perjury Hearing Transcript
(D) Only if Victim 2 comes forward and substantiates Mike McQueary's suspicions is there a case for these counts of the indictment. Even that does not correct the weakness of Mike's statements under oath or the misconduct of the Attorney General's office in publishing such a damaging distortion in their Presentment.
(A) 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."
(B)(D) - Attorney Joe Amendola said a man who says he is Victim Two came to his office and contradicted the statements made by Mike McQueary about what he allegedly witnessed in a shower in 2002. "He sat here with his mother and brother and said he was not a victim."
(C) McQuery first saw shower scene in a mirror
McQueary: only looked at Jerry for a second or two total.
McQueary says "I did not see insertion or hear screaming or yelling"
McQueary said I can’t say 100 percent sure that intercourse was happening
McQueary: two glances were 1 or 2 seconds long. multiple showers were on
McQuery "based on slapping sounds, I contrived a visual of what was happening, Then I glanced "That first look through the mirror, I didn't know what to think."
How long in locker room? McQuery: "No longer than a minute, I'd say 45seconds."
"I cannot say I saw Sandusky's hands on the boy." McQueary "I wouldn't use the word intercourse. I would say extreme sexual act. I think was intercourse." But did not see "insertion" Was the boy bent over or standing up? Standing up.
McQueary can't remember if Sandusky had an erection. "I didn't look down there."
McQ says he did not see pain on the boys face"
McQueary says "yes he left the boy naked in the shower with Sandusky"
Fairness and Justice: This comprises my analysis of the situation that led to the vilification of Joe and PSU. It was unjust and manufactured by distortion and a lie. All along I've lobbied for patience and restraint - to stop the rush to judgment. This diary is my best argument in defense of everyone at Penn State - a minority opinion I believe is far more studied and plausible than 99% of the media's output. No matter how all this turns out, I believe in the basic goodness of the people at Penn State who have been harmed by the way this was handled from the Attorney General to the Board of Trustees and the media. Agree or not - it's your choice - but for me this is about simple truth and fairness and the Attorney General, Board of Trustees, and Media denied Joe and PSU simple fairness. The Attorney General could have simply told the truth in the presentment - that would have been fair. The media could have done their jobs and questioned the Attorney Generals presentment language - that would be fair and the Board of Trustees could have backed their coach and school - that would have been fair and right. Paterno was fired in a rush to judgment solely based on the distortion of Mike McQueary's testimony written by the Attorney General's office and ratified by the Grand Jury.