The Rhythm of Reasonable Doubt ?
How about an over the top take on the rhythm of the Grand Jury Presentment while we celebrate the new year? Because It seems so strange that Joe Paterno would be in this current predicament because of a couple of 2 second glances and the "Rhythmic Slapping Sounds that led Mike McQueary to suspect sexual activity"? I am not trying to make light of the clever, evil, and devious Sandusky and the horror of his sick actions.
I believe the Attorney General and the Governor have a lot of explaining to do as it turns out. Joe and the good people of Penn State have paid the price for the misleading false statements in the Grand Jury presentment authored by the Attorney General's office. Her press release was another study in totally misleading overstatement and we haven't even gotten to that absurdity but we will. But this week I've Got RHYTHM to discuss.
"It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but you can lose it in a minute" Will Rogers
The Grand Jury Presentment made many believe that Mike Mcqueary was EAR witness to a sex act. Mike only observed Sandusky and the boy for 1 or 2 seconds in direct view of Sandusky's backside that blocked any view of genitals or hands. So it had to be this "rhythmic slapping" sexual sound that made him so certain of an "extremely sexual" situation did it not?
Just how does one infer sex or rhythm from 3 claps or slaps?
The Grand Jury Presentment read:
"He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity"
This was a key part of a 45 second locker room visit where the Grand Jury that voted for the Attorney General's presentment claiming that Mike "saw" a boy being subjected to "anal intercourse". We have learned that is untrue. But those Rhythmic Slapping Sounds surely they were the origin of Mike's certainty. A rhythm of slapping that could only come from sexual activity makes sense. That rhythm coupled with the glances might add up to something --- but
the rhythmic slapping sounds were just 3 claps
How does one get a RHYTHM of sexual activity from 3 claps?
Some obvious questions for the Attorney General.
- Can anyone reading this actually arrive at a reasonable understanding of how any 3 slapping sounds could become "rhythmic slapping sounds believed to be sexual activity"?
- If anyone came to me and said they suspect a crime after two 2 second glances of a back and 3 slapping sounds and expect me to call police - would I? would you?
- Have the Attorney General and Grand Jury overstated their case in the summary of Mike's testimony for some purpose that has not yet been revealed?
The Perjury Hearing Transcript keeps yielding little gems of misconduct by prosecutors in the inflammatory rhetoric of this (dubious) FINDING OF FACT. The only Rhythm I hear is the drumbeat of the locomotive designed by the Attorney General to create a media frenzy from misleading characterization of the "extremely credible" Mike McQueary:
This summary of his testimony had to come from a head full of hallucinogenic substances because it did not come from the substance of Mike's Perjury Hearing testimony under oath. How did that testimony merit this graphic description?
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."
If the Attorney General has no Rhythm can she dance to a conviction on misrepresentation?
Would not the accurate way to have described McQueary's testimony be this:
He then heard three claps or slaps his wild imagination thought might be sexual activity. As he put sneakers in his locker he glimpsed for 1 or 2 seconds the back of an adult male through a reflection in a mirror above the sink in a room adjoining the showers. Moving for a direct view he glanced for 1 or 2 seconds the motionless full backside of Jerry Sandusky mostly blocking the view of a young boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years of age. Sandusky's arms were around the boy who's hands were on the wall. Both were standing up and the boy's feet were on the floor. He could not see genitals or the location of Sandusky's hands. He slammed his locker door and walked to a point Sandusky and the boy could both see him. They were stood a few feet apart and stared at McQueary. He left the boy standing in the shower with a naked Sandusky and went upstairs to an office to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they were gone. He said nothing to the boy or Sandusky. He did not offer help to the boy. He did not question Sandusky. The Grand Jury found this testimony inconclusive.
Although McQueary's testimony was the result of prosecutors designed questioning with no cross-examination the presentment was a gross exaggeration of what McQueary said under oath at the Perjury Preliminary Hearing
The PENN SCANDAL here is the Grand Jury Presentment, call it THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD where the AG will Not Pass Go and will not collect a conviction on 3 claps and 2 seconds. Let's hope Sandusky doesn't merit a Get Out Of Jail Free card from the reasonable doubt of the inappropriate Victim 2 segment of the Presentment. Given the absence of an unidentifiable victim 2 these counts rely solely on Mike McQueary and his own reasonable doubt. So far the Attorney General and her version of the case have a virtual Monopoly on public opinion after providing the Media with their misrepresentation. But that could easily vanish as more people discover the facts.
The more is revealed the worse the Attorney General, the Board of Trustees, and the media look. Simply describing accurately the testimony of Mike McQueary would have avoided so much of the media frenzy and outrage directed at Penn State University and Joe Paterno. Truth and accuracy are always best unless one is out to tarnish well earned reputations to promote their own political ambitions or distract from their own political failings?
Now we find that Governor Corbett accepted $25,000 from Second Mile while his office was investigating Sandusky and thousands more from Second Mile board members. Is the misrepresentation by the Attorney General a ploy to distract the public from the actions of the Governor?
Governor Corbett spent a year investigating with one investigator after one victim came forward with his tale of abuse. Corbett's successor added 7 investigators and took two years to bring the case to the Grand Jury Presentment. How many kids were abused in those three years? How much money went to the Governor and Attorney General in campaign funds? How long did they delay their report as a result?
Joe Paterno was told about the claps and a couple of 2 second glances and he did the right thing and passed it on up the chain to the administration. He had no reason obscure the actions of a pedophile and did not. But Joe has been vilified and fired while the Governor holds his office and pontificates about Mike McQueary's moral obligation? That is one rhythm that I cannot dance to.
additional thoughts about the response the the rather incredible McQueary testimony
Following the March 1, 2002 incident Mike told 5 people some version of what he experienced and that was not that he saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse.
- His father Dr. John McQueary
- Family friend Dr Jonathan Dranov
- Head PSU football coach Joe Paterno
- Athletic Director Tim Curley
- Senior Vice President Gary Schultz
The media and public are now outraged at Paterno and PSU because of the Attorney General's seriously misleading characterization. But on the night in question and in the few days that followed Mike told his story to 5 educated and respected men in positions of responsibility and none of them thought his suspicions should be immediately reported to police or child protective services. Why not?
With the benefit of hindsight Some people here on BSD and out across the country are certain that 10 years later the police should have been called? People who do not know Mike McQueary. People who did not hear his story within minutes, hours and days of the event are certain? Have you considered the possibility that Mike's story was simply so insubstantial it did not make sense to those who heard it? Do you think there was some common interest shared by these 5 responsible educated men that had to be protected by a cover up enabling a child molester?
Or is the simplest explanation the most credible? Mike's story just didn't seem 'extremely credible' to the one man who knew him best or his friend Dr. Dranov, So why should it have seemed credible to Tim Curley or Gary Schultz?
The Governor's friend the Attorney General charges Curley and Schultz with perjury for differing accounts of a 10 minute meeting about a 45 second locker room incident 9 years in the past. Yet the Governor was taking money and prolonging an investigation just 3 years ago while doing nothing to inhibit the pedophile.
- Maybe 3 slapping sounds are NOT evidence of a sex act and to hold them out as that seems, well quite frankly, crazy?
- Perhaps two 2 second glimpses of a back as described in Mike's testimony are NOT evidence of a sex act?
- Not one of these 5 good men thought it was advisable to contact police or child protective services. Why? Because they did not find anything "extremely credible" about Mike's suspicions?
Happy New Year Penn State Friends. I am still finding this situation to be a compelling subject due to the gross misrepresentation of the circumstances and I will continue to add my thoughts in these fanposts if that is agreeable to you. I have never experienced a story like this one that has galvanized such widespread contempt for good people based on such a strange account.. I'm just trying to make sense of how it could have happened.
Your comments, likes, recs, and votes are appreciated and helpful. I think we are all trying to understand how this could happen and why Penn State and Joe Paterno have been made the villains of the piece.
Can any of you come up with a rational explanation of how 3 claps or slaps can be rhythmic or sexual?
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
26 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I make sounds like that
all the time (football games, soccer games, when someone is introduced on stage, when I’m singing a Stevie Wonder song, or stomping in a puddle of water, etc.), but I’ve never made 3 clapping sounds during sex. But maybe that’s just my fault.
You just need to hold out longer until the 3rd stroke.
Proud proponent of the 52 team Uber Conference
Yes Mike's diagnosis of sex seems a bit premature?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Compared to The Booster it's downright impressive.
more male than the post office
by WorldBFat on Dec 29, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If it feels good, you are doing it right...
… and if our ladies aren’t always satisfied, we’re guys so what do we care?
We invested handheld machines to satisfy them – consider them the bedroom equivalent to the electric starter on cars so they wouldn’t need us to hand crank the engine to start it, the equivalent to the gas stove and gas heating so they wouldn’t need us to chop wood for cooking, the equivalent to refrigeration so they wouldn’t need us to hunt game daily for meat – we did our part!
(ProveIt grunts, thumps chest, and walks away chanting the man song)
Proud proponent of the 52 team Uber Conference
by ProveIt on Dec 29, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Well, that's an interesting philosophy.
I’ll guess, you’re not married?
If you are tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department normally uses water.
I haven't found any babe who can properly hand crank my engine...
…or chop wood
…or hunt fresh meat
…or make me a kept man (who needs another dependent?)
Proud proponent of the 52 team Uber Conference
Fixed it for ya:
With the benefit of hindsight, “Some people here on BSD and out across the country are certain that 10 years later the police should have been called.”
"God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"
Good suggestion and so amended NJ Lion
thank you
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Thank you for your continued exquisite analysis.
In a situation where actual facts are extremely few and far between, it’s very enlightening to see such thorough analysis and reasoning applied to the few things that are available. It’s articles such as this that help fight ignorance one piece at a time.
While I’m not ready to get into full blown conspiracy mode, I do believe that there are agendas and ulterior motives that have shaped the course of these events. The biggest problem that we now face is in order for information such as this to get disseminated, it would need to come from the same places that produced the speculation and misinformation in the first place. The only thing that we can hope for is that there is some form of punishment served to those that have abused their power.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Dec 29, 2011 1:43 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
We need to get some of this stuff into the mainstream
by The Booster on Dec 29, 2011 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's very difficult to accomplish.
Anything that hits the mainstream that is pro-Penn State or pro-Paterno results in immediate refutation as supporting child abuse. We need some form of official entity to make these assertions, such as the university administration or BoT. I’m not optimistic that any of the media would pick it up on its own, but maybe with the help of press releases by the school and other established entities, it would at least get the ball rolling.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Dec 29, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Here's what I think:
As you’ve pointed out a lot McQueary’s testimony is consistent with any number of non-sexual (albeit still inappropriate) actions on the part of Sandusky. This does not mean I’m convinced that Sandusky is in any way innocent of this particular charge, even if he manages to shirk it legally. Nonetheless, by his own admission, Mike did not see penetration, pain on the boy’s face, or Sandusky sporting an erection. In absence of these things, he may have jumped to a conclusion about what he did see. Whatever the case, I think it is probably a reasonable conclusion assuming there’s a kid in a shower in a deserted locker room at night with an older man. In fact, and let’s be completely honest, if we were talking about a woman in the shower with Sandusky, we all know we would jump to a sexual conclusion. The same story with a woman and we don’t doubt Mike AT ALL… which is why I have a slight problem with trying to discredit Mike’s testimony even if it does speak to his credibility in reporting his own actions after the initial witnessed event.
Nonetheless…
How sure was Mike about what he saw at the time of the incident? How adamant was he about what he was sure he saw in recounting the story? How much of what he was sure he saw could reasonably be taken as evidence of an “extreme sexual” situation?
I’ve maintained for a long time that the one thing that explains every person’s actions is Mike not really being all that sure of what he saw or doing a bad job of communicating it.
For example, maybe:
1) He was not sure about what he saw and that doubt was very evident in his initial retelling(s) of the story.* This lead to no less than 5 intelligent and educated men taking the situation rather less seriously than it should have been (and you could include McQueary himself, from not calling the police immediately to never following up with Schultz).
2) He was sure about what he saw but was uncomfortable giving graphic enough details to ensure prompt action. After all, I could have a perfect memory of a crime as an eye witness, but if I don’t give certain details to the police I can’t expect them to act on them. It seems likely that Schultz (especially) received a vague recounting that seemed in line with what Sandusky was cleared of in the 1998 incident. Instead of taking the 1998 incident as a warning sign that the 2002 incident was very serious, he likely took it as exactly the opposite (i.e., Sandusky is a man that loves and cares for children and people are apt to misinterpret his behavior as being inappropriate). Schultz’s eventual actions, and the acceptance of those actions (or at least a lack of protest) by everyone involved, is very consistent with most of these people acknowledging that the misinterpretation of Sandusky’s behavior was a threat but that this incident (as described by McQueary) may have been a big misunderstanding.
3) McQueary’s memory makes him look like the person that tried to be the hero and was thwarted instead of the person that was too afraid to fully pursue this until years later when he found out that there were other victims/witnesses.**
*The fact that his current version of the story still has “holes” in it as far as supporting that he was 100% sure about having seen a sexual incident is pretty damaging in my opinion. Our memories have a way of confirming our own conclusions about an incident, how it happened, and what motivated the actors. If he had come to the conclusion that it was sex, over almost 10 years of replaying that event and then testifying about it, I would also have expected him to ‘remember’ more graphic details that unambiguously support his conclusion. Those same ‘details’ would not be filled in by someone who remembered the incident, had doubts about it, and concluded he may have been mistaken. He is still an important witness and I still believe a lot of his story, but I think there’s too many unanswerable questions about what information he communicated. Why, if he was so sure about what he saw (and communicated that well), didn’t he go to the police and did his Dad and Dr. Dranov apparently not tell him to go to police? How did at least 5 different people not seem to take what he was saying very seriously (they didn’t tell him to go to police, they took their time responding, they accepted a ‘slap on the wrist’ punishment, etc.).
**I think it is possible that Curley/Schultz purposely buried this and lied to Paterno, Spanier, and McQueary to make it go away and look like they had done something. However, I’m suspicious of an eye witness who is sure of what he saw deciding not to immediately go to the police, not to insist on stronger action, not to go to the cops when the administration didn’t take stronger action, not to pursue another opportunity at another school (if he thought this was a coverup), and not to avoid Second Mile activities after the incident. The ONLY action McQueary has taken that makes sense for a confident eye witness is testifying in these trials… and I’m sure learning that there are multiple victims might create some of that confidence and a motivation to right a wrong that he apparently witnessed.
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 29, 2011 1:48 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
A single quibble with your analysis
Whatever the case, I think it is probably a reasonable conclusion assuming there’s a kid in a shower in a deserted locker room at night with an older man.
Under normal circumstances this would seem obvious but if I understand things correctly we have here the Founder of an effective and popular charity for disadvantaged children established 25 years prior to 2002 who is also foster father to six. This man is known for bringing the kids he is fostering to workouts. How does Mike know if this is not one of his foster kids?
Sandusky was clever enough to avoid detection because of his charity operation. Who would question a boy being with him at a late day workout and shower with a kid since he was always with kids? There were 1000’s of kids and millions of dollars associated with Second Mile and JS took advantage of this situation to set up his targets. But no one knew this until 2008 when the first victim came forward to investigators to log a complaint.
The 1998 investigation ended with JS cleared and it was quite similar in nature to the 2002 incident.
I’m beginning to think it’s possible Mike had some kind of bad experience with Sandusky or perhaps a childhood friend might have told him something. Just jumping to the sex act conclusion based on what we think we know seems extreme given JS supposed reputation as charity founder and foster father.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 29, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A 3-rhythm-clap is......
to me at least, using the Clapper to turn off, on, off the light OR on, off, on the light.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Dec 29, 2011 2:27 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Call me Scrooge, but unfortunately
my ghost of PSU future indicated to me in a dream on XMAS eve that there will be no vindication until some time after the verdicts are in on Curley and Schultz. Once both NOT GUILTY verdicts are released via live TV (from Harrisburg where the trials are being moved — even though this cash-strapped city can’t afford to pay for the added security — seriously), there will be the initial media-fed public outrage about the dumb jury that just didn’t “see the truth” like the media and public mobs knew all along. Then, as each member of the media spins the ‘facts’ anew, some will blame the prosecution for a poorly executed case (ala OJ and Casey Anthony), some will blame the Judge for not allowing critical evidence and testimony to be heard (by anyone other than the attorneys) and some will credit blame the Defense Attorneys for their Court Room trickery (ala if it doesn’t fit . . . or . . . if you shake slap it more than three times . . . .)
Most will then refocus on Sandusky. Should the AG replace the incompetent trial staff? Should Victim #2 and MM testimony be dropped from the Sandusky trial (as well as the aged janitor witness and victim #?) Should the civil cases proceed without waiting any longer?
However, the BoT, the BIG, the NCAA, the Dept. of Education, the PSP Commissioner, the Governor, the Auditor General, Senators Casey and Toomey will do nothing but crawl in a hole and develop a “wait and see” strategy and hope that any corrective actions can be postponed until after the Sandusky criminal cases are concluded in 2013.
Curley will retire and Schultz will return to retirement.
My ghost only showed me the future for 2012 so 2013 is still a mystery.
Stop blaming Joe -- media mobs!
Nominate - Elect Franco Harris, Brandon Short, Lydell Mitchell or Jimmy Cefalo to BoT (and vote out incumbents for next three years)
by OlderBudweiser on Dec 29, 2011 6:26 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
How could Joe have been made the villain?
The Grand Jury Summary Report says that Mike saw the boy with his hands up against the wall being subjected to "anal intercourse." That’s the term they actually used. The summary later states that Mike reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno. Also, according to the report, Joe testified that he received McQueary’s report. The logical conclusion for the rush to judgment crowd and anal-attentive media is that Joe was told that the boy was subjected to anal intercourse. Then, he merely passed it up the chain and forgot about it. The BOT stated, I believe, that they based Joe’s firing completely on what was in the Summary Report.
This made sense to a lot of people, and at the same time, it made no sense at all to those of us who have known Joe or followed Penn State Football for any length of time. Who among us really believed that Joe Paterno knew that an actual rape occurred in the football shower room and failed to report it to the police and/or ensure that a thorough investigation had taken place? I commented right away that I refused to believe it. You were onto this early on as well, Aurabass, as you pointed out many other inconsistencies in the report and provided several other possible scenarios that were supported by using actual logic.
by uforabin on Dec 30, 2011 12:39 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I have the same HOW question uforabin -
and I think the how is clear since the Attorney General chose to make it so.
The further question is Why did she choose to do that?
Why lie in the presentment and make Joe and Mike into pedophile enablers when she did not even have a victim to testify?
Why make the victim-less (in that no known victim has come forward) March 1, 2002 allegations the focal point of her case against Sandusky?
She had 6 now 8 bonafide victims so why put so much emphasis on this rather muddled account by McQueary with no victim available to back it up?
McQueary has told 5 different people different stories including his father, Dr Dranov and Joe Paterno along with Curley and Schultz. His written statement to the Grand Jury is another account. His email to his teammates another account. So why is the Attorney General making him and Joe Paterno the faces of her case against Sandusky?
It makes little sense to me unless it is a distraction.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 30, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why not simply for her own personal gain?
While I agree that there are motives that fit Corbett and others modus operandi, could she not have just seen this as a way to draw attention to herself? Clearly a prosecution that incriminates Joe Paterno is going to draw attention. If one of the consequences of this is that she becomes renowned for bringing down Paterno’s Grand Experiment, it would certainly make her a powerful political figure in future career endeavors.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Dec 30, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well that is certainly a possibility
That is how most Attorney General’s build their reputations for election to higher office like the current governor.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 30, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I dont think the Attorney General meant for Paterno
to get destroyed like this.
I think the Attorney General wanted Shultz and Curley to be destroyed and in the process, while trying to praise Paterno, Noonan comes out with that statement that included “including any football coach” that really put the nail in the Paterno reputation.
If Noonan doesnt make that statement I dont know if the media goes THIS crazy.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Maybe but despite her intentions
her emphasis on the Victim 2 charges in her press release and the bald faced lie in the presentment made people think that Mike told Joe he saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse when he said no such thing
The failure of the AG to make it clear that was not the case is what I think sunk Joe with the BOT. It’s quite a different matter if the presentment said the truth
that Mike did not see anything but a boy in a shower with Sandusky in close contact.
vs saying the saw anal intercourse thing.
Anybody hearing he SAW ANAL INTERCOURSE should have immediately called police but hearing “something that made me uncomfortable like inappropriate touching or fondling maybe sexual” would be entirely different given Sandusky’s reputation as charity founder and foster father.
I still believe her motives for going after PSU through Curley and Schultz has to be motivated by trying to make a name for herself or distracting from the Gov’s handling of the investigation and her 2 years after that.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 31, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

by 




























