THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PRESENTMENT & PRESSER WERE VICIOUS SLANDER AND LIBEL.
Is Mike is a tragic figure in this drama who has been ill-used by the Attorney General to insure the conviction of Sandusky and to unwillingly tarnish the image of PSU and Joe Paterno.
THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN ABOUT WHAT MIKE TOLD TIM and GARY.
Presentment Lie confirmed
Here it is without ambiguity "I would not have used the words ANAL INTERCOURSE" so why did the Presentment that brought condemnation down on PSU and JoePa say he did? Who is to blame for for those words that destroyed the reputations of PSU, JoePa and 3 administrators? This is Mike's total testimony at the Perjury hearing on what he said to the AD & VP and he says "I would have said extremely sexual act and I think it was intercourse" p 81. I would have said??? I think??
Well would you or did you? This is important. You thought this took place in March 2002 but it didn't. Now you tell us what you "would have said" and what "you think" but you cannot tell us what you did say and see? Perjury depends on exact words not thoughts not "would have" We know what you didn't say. You didn't say the words in the Presentment that created a tsunami of vilification toward Penn State. Be careful here. Your words are being used to put 2 or 3 men in prison. Words attributed to you have already ruined reputations. If you told Joe and the AD & VP anything specific you would have said... but you did not tell them anything but the truth. You glanced for 1 or 2 seconds and saw Jerry's backside. That is all you saw.
.
For "five or six minutes he explained the whole night" he told about 2-3 "sexual rhythmic" slapping sounds, visualizations, two 2 second glances and the positions of the two standing up with feet on the floor not bent over. But Anal intercourse between a very large man and a 10 year old boy is painful and distressing and cannot be accomplished in the positions he described. A 10 year old child can not "shut down" or block out that kind of pain. This may seem crude but it's true.
Did Mike hate Sandusky for making him feel like he failed the boy in 2001? Did he not do what he thought he should've done? Could his guilt made him do what prosecutors urged and enhance his story? I took Occam's Razor to this situation to arrive at the most likely explanations for decisions that were made a decade in the past by competent good men who would never enable a predator or cover up his crimes.
I start from a presumption of innocence and good intentions by men who's accomplishments deserve respect without casting Mike as a bad guy. His intentions were also good. They are all good men faced with one sick evil Jerry Sandusky and a terrible situation. The decision they made in 2001 seemed to hold up well for a decade and second guessing them now over 2 second glances and a 10 minute meeting? How can that make any sense?
A SECOND OR TWO
McQueary Testimony by Barry Bozeman/ Perjury Hearing Transcript
A SECOND OR TWO and MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS - no mistake said twice in answer to 2 questions
MAYBE ONE OR TWO SECONDS
McQueary Testimony by Barry Bozeman/ Perjury Hearing Transcript
Perjury Hearing Transcript page 12 lines 12 thru 14 and page 17 lines 4 thru 8 Please glance at 2 people for 1 or 2 seconds. Can a second or two glance show true motion? Could you tell the difference between a man who just caught a kid about to fall or one who grabbed a boy to keep him from sliding into a wall or one who was doing sodomy in that glance? Now try it on an angle through a mirror. Why would you only glance for 1 or 2 seconds? And prosecutors think it's worthwhile to drag PSU and Joe through this madness? It should make you Mad As Hell..
Can anyone think of another case where such a venerated institution with accomplished people have been persecuted over 2 second glances a decade in the past where the criminal was caught and convicted? You should be Mad as Hell.
He was VISUALIZING sex? Mike tells us what happened right here:
McQueary Testimony by Barry Bozeman/ Perjury Hearing Transcript
VISUALIZATIONS? P 56
A decade ago you would think anyone who reported Sandusky over these 2 second glances was nuts. Only hindsight makes this seem reasonable. It's time to stop this blame madness. Mike wanted to get out of there before he even glanced - that is why he didn't take the time to confirm his suspicions. Mike is accusing the saintly Sandusky known as charity founder, foster father and acclaimed coach.
The entire media narrative on this was wrong from the beginning in Nov of 2011. Mike did not see anal rape and report it. He glanced for two seconds after visualizing that he was going to see sex between adults. His report to Joe, the AD and VP was confused and muddled and a great institution and coach have been unfairly maligned as a result."I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE'. And everyone reading this should be Mad as Hell too.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
