Who Is Responsible for the Damage to PSU & Paterno for the 2 Second Glances and Visualizations of Mike McQueary?
When you really get into actual testimony the idea that Joe Paterno, AD Tim Curley, VP Gary Schultz or Dr. Spanier should be blamed for not dealing correctly with McQueary's 2001 2 second visualizations seems silly. The fact that Penn State and these men are being dragged through the mud over a decade old decision because of what a shocked assistant coach 'might have said about 2 second glances is just plain crazy.
We know enough right now - emails and files don't matter. The Paternos should sue the socks off of Linda Kelly and the authors of the Presentment as should Penn State administrators. The Presentment was a damned LIE that cost them millions and all this hoorah about how the 2001 decision was made is ridiculous. The media hasn't read or absorbed the actual testimony under oath so they don't know how Mike visualized those 2 second glances. Here you will find the actual words of Mike McQueary used to describe the 2001 incident.
Mike McQueary was not the most important witness in the Sandusky trial but he is the most important element in the malicious defamation of PSU and Joe Paterno.
Two second visualizations that shook the sports world and cost PSU 12 million
Feb 9 2001 Mike thought 2-3 slapping sounds in the showers were an adult couple having sex. He visualized sex when he glimpsed Sandusky behind a boy for 1 or 2 seconds twice. Shocked it wasn't adults he slammed his locker, came face to face with the boy and Sandusky and was baffled when the boy did not show distress, pain or fear and was not protesting or crying out. In confusion he fled. The boy did not act like a rape victim.
At home with his father and Dr. Dranov he's shaken thinking "What did I just see?" "What was Jerry doing with that boy?" "Should I have left the boy with him" and "What should I do now?" His explanation is muddled and confused as he is. The same is true the next morning when he speaks with Joe Paterno.
10 days later in a 10-12 minute meeting with the AD & VP he is no more explicit or certain. He's fine with the decision when informed that Sandusky can't bring boys to PSU. The story ends for a decade. Mike is not certain he saw something sexual. If he was he couldn't have let it slide for a decade.
Then in 2010 he meets the Attorney General's investigation. The AG has 5 or 6 victims. Mike hasn't thought about Feb of 2001 for a decade. The AG assures him his testimony is vital to put away a predator. He starts to visualize again.
Mike feels guilty. Was the boy in 2001 being raped? Did it continue after he left? Could he have saved other boys? Did his uncertainty lead to more ruined lives? Why didn't he do something that night or later? What can he do now to atone? Tortured by these questions he becomes a willing instrument of the AG who says his testimony is required to convict Sandusky. He will do anything the AG asks.
We know about 2 or 3 slapping sounds and two 1 or 2 second glances of Sandusky standing behind a boy not bent over, hands on the wall, feet on the floor who's head came to Jerry's pectoral muscles. We know about the slammed locker door and the boy with no fear, pain or distress who was not crying out. He never said "thrusting" in fact he said "very little movement" It's under oath in the Perjury Hearing Transcript. p 15
But the Grand Jury Presentment of Nov 5 says "He SAW the boy being subjected to anal intercourse and he told Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz" Those words hit the media in a firestorm of outrage and indignation. Mike McQueary saw a kid being raped and didn't rush in to save him? Mike runs home and calls his daddy? McQueary should serve jail time!!! scream the headlines. Now he has to do something to redeem himself.
The media is camped out on Mike's lawn. He is told he cannot coach. His idol and mentor is removed as head coach. PSU is called a den of enablers. Students protesting Joe's dismissal are said to be rioting to protect a child rapist. He and Joe are just a rung below Sandusky on the evil scale in the media. It's hard to imagine the pain and suffering he must have endured those first few weeks and since. This is totally unexpected. He did not know the Attorney General was going after Penn State or claiming the AD and VP committed perjury.
We all know the Presentment Version vs the Perjury Hearing Version and what Mike told his dad, his doctor, his coach and what he says he told the AD and the VP from actual testimony.
Did the verdicts on victim 2 in the Sandusky trial mean the jury found Mike's 'intercourse story' credible? OR did the not guilty verdict on the charge of deviate sexual intercourse mean the jury did not believe him? The latter is true of course. They voted Not Guilty on the intercourse the Attorney General claimed he saw and reported.
Count 7 - not guilty Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
Count 8 - guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 9 - guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Count 10 - guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Count 11 - guilty Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)
The verdicts on the actual victims that testified were enough to put Sandusky away for life. His testimony was not that important. But now he is lauded as courageous and has a civil case as a whistle-blower. It was the grooming pattern established by the victims that led to the guilty verdicts above.
Everything we now see in the media about these emails and the decisions made in 2001 are based on Mike explicitly telling Joe, Tim and Gary that he witnessed some sexual assault in no uncertain terms. Without the belief that these men were told of a crime their decisions in 2001 would not be in question. Adding "I thought a sexual nature" is not definitive or important. Discussing McQueary's report and trying to decide what to do is not evasion or cover up.
THIS IS NOT MIKE McQUEARY'S FAULT - He has been ill-used by the Attorney General
We can feel badly for Mike and the position he found himself in that night in 2001. We can sympathize with his desire to make up for 2001 by trying to do what the AG said he should to put JS away. We can understand if he didn't realize the ramifications of his words as far as Joe or PSU is concerned. But if he did not tell Joe, Tim and Gary that he was certain it was a sex act and not some horseplay? What then? If Mike were really convinced that Sandusky was raping that boy in 2001 would he have remained silent for a decade? Would he have waited until he knew of the investigation in 2010 to raise questions about Sandusky being around PSU with his friends?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).