Post by aurabass on Jul 12, 2012 19:57:43 GMT -5
Louis Freeh the disgraced FBI Director who presided over the agency for 8 years when Robert Hanssen the worst spy in US history sold billions in secrets to the USSR and then Russia. Freeh was Director until July of 2011 (replaced by an interim for 71 days) during the prelude to 9/11 while the terrorists were training to fly at US flight schools. And finally Freeh became Trustee for MF Global and is being investigated by Congress for his role in withholding documents from other trustees and assigning big bonuses to the former managers of the bankrupt company.
He says "The most glaring part of the investigation was that none of the leaders at Penn State showed the slightest concern or regard for Sandusky's victims in 14 years" Well DuH!! The leaders at Penn State never believed they were dealing with a pedophile and did not know there were any victims until the world knew.
Freeh starts from the premise that Mike McQueary's statements to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz was the same lie told in the Grand Jury Presentment. That he had witnessed a sexual assault.
McQueary's own testimony under oath proves this is untrue and that these men who had known of Jerry Sandusky's history of work with children through his charity The Second Mile were not explicitly told of any sex act. McQueary for 5 or 6 minutes by his admission related the story of his 45 second visit to that locker room. He told them of the 2 or 3 slapping sounds that led him to suspect two adults were having sex in the showers. He told them about his first 1 or 2 second glance that revealed only the backside of Sandusky through a mirror and his second 1 or 2 second glance of Sandusky with a boy in front standing upright, hands on the wall, head up to Sandusky's pectorals, feet on the floor, and not bent over. These are McQueary's own words that can be read here in my post on that subject with images of the actual transcript
Mike says "I would have said extremely sexual and I thought it was intercourse" I WOULD have said not that he did say that. Curley and Schultz say he said no such thing. Read their testimonyl and tell me why you would believe a 27 year old graduate assistant coach with 2 second glances who says under oath:
I didn't know what to think = I wasn't sure what I was seeing
I already had a mental image - I visualized what I was going to see before I even glanced
I saw very little movement
only one or two seconds
So as a competent administrator you are going to hear this description from Mike and think he was explicitly telling you of a sex act by a man Joe had known for 30 years? A man who's book had just been published in Jan who was thought to be as close to a saint as anyone in the state? A man honored by Pres Bush and Sen Santorum? Well bullshit. You would have to think Mike made a mistake and that he should have observed for 30 or 60 seconds to confirm or refute his suspicions before he slammed that locker door and stood face to face with a boy and his "rapist". A boy that showed no pain, fear, or distress - a boy who had not cried out in pain or ask for help when Mike presented himself.
No Mike quickly exited that room and ran upstairs to call his Dad and never returned to see if the "rapist" had left with the boy. He did nothing to help a 10 year old boy he just saw being raped.
IF you say you would buy the idea that Mike was reporting a sex act with this story and hold that above everything you knew about Saint Jerry you are fooling yourself.
I don't care if Mike said he thought it was "a sexual nature". His detailed description of those 45 seconds delivered in 5 or 6 minutes by his own admission would be more than enough for anyone to question his suspicions - particularly delivered against a guy of Sandusky's stature.
And if you think that Joe Paterno asking to be updated on the 98 investigation is some kind of red flay? Well that's just as nuts. The 98 investigation knowledge is EXCULPATORY not INCRIMINATING. The Victim 6 in 98 told investigators he was not molested. How does anyone figure that NO CHARGES should serve as some kind of warning?
Yes Jerry Sandusky showered with boys in his care. Yes that likely seems weird to some of you. But to Joe, Tim and Gary the idea of a foster father and charity founder taking a shower after a workout with a boy he was serving as surrogate father was not unusual or "creepy". The administrators realized that by 2001 these showers had to stop because they thought they could be interpreted the wrong way - as they thought Mike had interpreted. It turns out that Sandusky was most likely grooming that boy for future abuse but they had no way to do that and for you to take your current knowledge of who JS turned out to be and to apply it to Tim Gary or Joe in 2001 is unfair and prejudicial.
He says "The most glaring part of the investigation was that none of the leaders at Penn State showed the slightest concern or regard for Sandusky's victims in 14 years" Well DuH!! The leaders at Penn State never believed they were dealing with a pedophile and did not know there were any victims until the world knew.
Freeh starts from the premise that Mike McQueary's statements to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz was the same lie told in the Grand Jury Presentment. That he had witnessed a sexual assault.
McQueary's own testimony under oath proves this is untrue and that these men who had known of Jerry Sandusky's history of work with children through his charity The Second Mile were not explicitly told of any sex act. McQueary for 5 or 6 minutes by his admission related the story of his 45 second visit to that locker room. He told them of the 2 or 3 slapping sounds that led him to suspect two adults were having sex in the showers. He told them about his first 1 or 2 second glance that revealed only the backside of Sandusky through a mirror and his second 1 or 2 second glance of Sandusky with a boy in front standing upright, hands on the wall, head up to Sandusky's pectorals, feet on the floor, and not bent over. These are McQueary's own words that can be read here in my post on that subject with images of the actual transcript
Mike says "I would have said extremely sexual and I thought it was intercourse" I WOULD have said not that he did say that. Curley and Schultz say he said no such thing. Read their testimonyl and tell me why you would believe a 27 year old graduate assistant coach with 2 second glances who says under oath:
I didn't know what to think = I wasn't sure what I was seeing
I already had a mental image - I visualized what I was going to see before I even glanced
I saw very little movement
only one or two seconds
So as a competent administrator you are going to hear this description from Mike and think he was explicitly telling you of a sex act by a man Joe had known for 30 years? A man who's book had just been published in Jan who was thought to be as close to a saint as anyone in the state? A man honored by Pres Bush and Sen Santorum? Well bullshit. You would have to think Mike made a mistake and that he should have observed for 30 or 60 seconds to confirm or refute his suspicions before he slammed that locker door and stood face to face with a boy and his "rapist". A boy that showed no pain, fear, or distress - a boy who had not cried out in pain or ask for help when Mike presented himself.
No Mike quickly exited that room and ran upstairs to call his Dad and never returned to see if the "rapist" had left with the boy. He did nothing to help a 10 year old boy he just saw being raped.
IF you say you would buy the idea that Mike was reporting a sex act with this story and hold that above everything you knew about Saint Jerry you are fooling yourself.
I don't care if Mike said he thought it was "a sexual nature". His detailed description of those 45 seconds delivered in 5 or 6 minutes by his own admission would be more than enough for anyone to question his suspicions - particularly delivered against a guy of Sandusky's stature.
And if you think that Joe Paterno asking to be updated on the 98 investigation is some kind of red flay? Well that's just as nuts. The 98 investigation knowledge is EXCULPATORY not INCRIMINATING. The Victim 6 in 98 told investigators he was not molested. How does anyone figure that NO CHARGES should serve as some kind of warning?
Yes Jerry Sandusky showered with boys in his care. Yes that likely seems weird to some of you. But to Joe, Tim and Gary the idea of a foster father and charity founder taking a shower after a workout with a boy he was serving as surrogate father was not unusual or "creepy". The administrators realized that by 2001 these showers had to stop because they thought they could be interpreted the wrong way - as they thought Mike had interpreted. It turns out that Sandusky was most likely grooming that boy for future abuse but they had no way to do that and for you to take your current knowledge of who JS turned out to be and to apply it to Tim Gary or Joe in 2001 is unfair and prejudicial.
