Post by aurabass on Jul 5, 2012 20:04:07 GMT -5
This story is interesting since it reveals that it was a very serious decision considering what little they were told by McQueary and how concerned they were with doing the right thing for PSU. My take is that they determined Mike's brief observation and suspicion insufficient evidence of a crime.
2001 PSU Officials Discussed Sandusky With Lawyers For 3 Hours
Top Pennsylvania State University officials held a three-hour meeting to discuss Jerry Sandusky in 2001 over concerns about the former coach's behavior with a boy in the football showers. A law-firm billing record from that conversation describes a "report of suspected child abuse," according to a person with knowledge of an independent investigation into the matter.
Now we can blame the PSU lawyers for the decision that what Mike McQueary told the administrator was insufficient to make a report outside of The Second Mile and Penn State can't we? IF the attorneys for PSU did not think it was required then my guess is they had good reason. Lawyers are notorious for erring on the side of caution. Could the liability of reporting JS on vague assumptions by a grad student be more problematic than not?
This revelation puts an entirely new spin on the diligence of the PSU administrators I think. If Penn State attorneys thought their actions legally responsible then why should they be questioned?
Based on the LIE In the Grand Jury Presentment - that Mike McQueary saw JS forcing a child into anal intercourse and telling that to Joe, Tim and Gary - the media rushed to judgment. When it was shown in under oath testimony that MM did not see anal intercourse and did not report that he did see anal intercourse the same media was woefully silent.
Then the Jury in the Sandusky trial came back with a NOT GUILTY verdict on 'deviate sexual intercourse" involving victim 2 and the media again failed to report that the verdict proved the Grand Jury Presentment was LIE. Not one recantation can I find in all the reports of the verdicts that mention the fact that the Presentment was based on a lie.
The media is back with a false narrative "Joe and PSU administrators knew of a sexual assault and covered it up"
The truth is that what MM told them was not credible evidence of any sexual assault. But the media is bound to the first lie and the first narrative and will not relinquish their blood lust now fueled by these reprehensible leaks of snippets of SELECTED emails that purport to cast JoePa and PSU in the worst possible light.
It has taken me months of dedicated research to cut through the bullshit to the truth and at every turn where a truth has been revealed a) the Perjury Hearing Testimony b) the testimony of Dr. Dranov and 3) the verdicts of the jury on victim 2, victim 6, and victim 5 even with the poor defense by Amendola. - it has been shown that the involvement of PENN STATE, Joe Paterno, and these three administrators has not involved knowing of anal intercourse or sexual assault and covering it up.
There is no question that Mike McQueary did not know and could not say conclusively whether what was happening in that shower on Feb 9 2001 was sexual. He could not convince anyone that three slapping sounds were sexual. And he could not make two 2 second glances into anal intercourse. Mike's evidence of any sex act was non-existent and based on suspicions instead of true observation.
