Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?

[getmyjive11]

Not his role. Honestly, his responsibility was not to check in everybody in that situation. He got the guy who saw something in touch with the people who handle those situations.
Pretty unreasonable to expect him to do more than that. From the sounds of it, he even checked with little Mikey who said he was fine with how things had been handled. Or something along those lines. What is he supposed to do with that?

This is not a normal situation. The pedo was a long time employee of Joe’s and a public figure. More importantly, he had access to children through his own charity. Jerry was so “dedicated” to that charity that prevented Joe himself from recommending JS as a successor.

Laws and procedures are written in such a way that the cover the majority of situations. This one was unique for the reasons above and should have required more attention.

 

[getmyjive11]

When you omit the "I don't know what you call it" you are purposefully being dishonest. Just like the OAG.

It’s not dishonest. I have explain that several times. It doesn’t charge the “of a sexual nature” part at all.

 

[getmyjive11]

I attempted to start out in this sub-thread with simple questions. Was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

I agree that calling police was a rational option. And that the Clery Act doesn't prevent it in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.

I didn't misread the clause in the Clery Act. I used that to explain why certain things were written into the university procedure. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

I am not attempting to use the Clery Act as a justification for not contacting law enforcement. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

You're right that all of those provisions relate to a known victim. That's the point. There's nothing really in the Clery Act, Title IX laws, current or former university procedures, or even in the current CPSL about what to do with an unknown victim. So again I'll ask - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

Does all this seem to highlight a big procedural gap existed back then?

Did you know Freeh was specifically charged with reviewing all of the university's procedures and identifying any gaps that existed? The gap was obviously found since it was fixed with the adoption of AD72.

Here's some ore background on all that:



https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/memory-issues.171360/page-6#post-2743277


To be clear, I am not trying to make excuses for anyone. I'm trying to understand what might have happened and identify any lessons learned that should have been communicated but weren't.

If it is possible Paterno, Curley, or Schultz consulted that procedure, I am not saying there were afraid to violate it. But the procedure is clear that the victim should have as much control as possible over what happens with any reporting that is made. The whole point of that philosophy is to encourage victims to come forward primarily so they can get medial and psychological services, because it's been long recognized many victims are afraid to come forward because they fear going to police and the thought of having to relive the event in a confrontational court situation.

And yes, there are situations where victims can't be given full control because reporting to police is absolutely mandated, but the procedures are very clear that they have to be informed before that occurs.

So going back to 2001. Did those men receive a clear and unequivocal report of sexual assault? Maybe not. Were there strong suspicions? I think so. Had any of those men been involved in reports of sexual assault before? I think that's likely. How many of them involved a victim who was insistent that things be taken care of, but that they didn't want to go to police? Perhaps some; maybe even a majority? Is it possible they understood the importance of respecting a victim's wishes is the right thing to do, and that the victim's physical and emotional health is an extremely important factor to consider? I think so.

Had that child victim and/or his parent(s) come forward I tend to think they would have all they could to assist him. In the absence of a victim coming forward, what do you think they thought was the right course of action? Find a way to get information to that boy's parent(s) and let them know they were aware of a suspicious situation and had a witness? Maybe talk to the head of the offender's charity - the guy most reasonably able to identify that boy - as a way to get information to the parent(s)? And allow the parents to decide what the best course of action was for their son's emotional well-being?

To be honest - I have no idea if the procedures back then guided any of the actions those men took.


But doesn't it seem reasonable that it should be considered as a possibility, at least as it relates to illustrating potential lessons learned? How many universities do you think adopted specific child abuse procedures since PSU did in May 2012? How many universities only have procedures aimed at university students in order to be compliant with the Clery Act and Title IX?

FYI - I've looked into whether Michigan State has policies that adequately address child abuse. They do. However, I've only been able to find the policy that was updated on 1/1/2015, after MSU had conducted a three month investigation that cleared Larry Nassar of an allegation in 2014, and most recent revision to the policy before that was in June 2011.


Last point for your consideration. Here's some Title IX guidance from the Department of Educations's 4/4/2011 Dear Colleague letter, which was sent to universities to remind them of their responsibilities to take immediate and effective steps to respond to sexual violence in accordance with the requirements of Title IX.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

Schools also should inform and obtain consent from the complainant (or the complainant's parents if the complainant is under 18 and does not attend a postsecondary institution) before beginning an investigation. If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, the school should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation.

I appreciate your work Jimmy, as I think most of on both sides of this issue. I will say though that even if the child is known, he/she would have no say on reporting the incident as they are minors. This is a vastly different situation than a 19 y/o assault victim.

 

[marshall23]

We are in agreement that Schultz's attorney was not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The plea doesn't even make sense. On February 11, 2001, how did Gary prevent or interfere with a report to the authorities? Who did he stop from reporting it? Who did he interfere with?

As I've written on several occasions, this was a case the Commonwealth could never have gotten a conviction on had Gary stuck to his grand jury testimony and then testified that a report was made. At that point it's up to the Commonwealth to prove a report was not -- and there's no way they could prove it -- especially because DPW/CYS cannot investigate an abuse report UNLESS it can identify the child. That report would have been screened out and not make it to "intake." It is highly unlikely that CYS would have records from February 2001 to show no calls came in from PSU phone lines.

Ray, I know what you are saying.....but I disagree that there is "no way" The Commonwealth could get a conviction. First the prosecutors are liars. Second, their star witnesses are willing to lie. Third, the jury pool is beyond tainted, dating back to the anal rape fairy tale. Finally, a judge who is beholding to the Commonwealth Corruption Network, who had the audacity to ramble on about a phone call............This was a political hit and The PSU 3 were going to be convicted of something.

 

[WDLion]

I know its been 16 pages and I haven't read all of them so I'm just jumping in here at the end but I see you're up to your old tricks again.

Here is the deal - this is not solely for you but for everyone.

I call it - "The Proper Thing To Do"

* MM - if he saw what he says he thinks he saw - DIRECTLY to Police (do NOT pass go; do NOT talk to Dad, DD, Joe or anyone else)

* Joe - when you receive a report from a subordinate like this then you look it up in the book and follow procedures - hmmmmmmmmmmm, that seems like exactly what he did - Great Job Joe !!

* I'll bypass DD and Dad here for the sake of space

* JR - when you are the head of a charity who receives a report of an incident (we all agree he received the report), then NO MATTER how watered down it was, you have a duty to follow up with your state mandated protocols - period, end of story, drop the mic.

The Fact that JR could serve as a "prosecution witness" for anyone is so ludicrous it literally boggles the mind of anyone with a social service background ..............

GMJ - quit trying to pin this on Joe - I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest in this.

Joe did what he should have in his role with the information he had at that time; further, he helped convict JS; and, finally, he was a very minimal player in the whole situation.

Like I said - "If you care about the kids then quit focusing your efforts on a freaking football coach"!

"I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest in this".
I'm starting to think the same. A few others also.

 

[marshall23]

Didn't that essentially happen at Central Mountain High with the Sandusky report there?? Nothing happened to those administrators.

They couldn't afford to charge anyone at CMHS. Too many employed there could testify to the character of "victim#1."

 

[marshall23]

I'll only provide the caveat that unless you have been subjected to the corruption and willful malice of the PA courts (as I once was), you cannot pass judgment on the legal decisions Gary and Tim made.

Its been proven police and prosecutors routinely lie to get a conviction and we already know how close the judges are to the prosecutors.
Why do you think Porngate got buried?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

No it wouldn't:

• They'd interview MM and get the exact same conclusions that Dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley and Schultz came to.
• They'd try to find the child but others tried that and were unsuccessful, or the child backed Jerry's claims, we really don't know for sure.
• They'd go back to TSM but TSM didn't keep records, as far as we know, but said that JS was pretty clean with regard to complaints.

In the end, nothing actionable.

You forgot Raykovitz. Raykovitz knew who the kid was.

Raykovitz testified under oath that Jerry told him it was a Second Mile kid, and Jerry said, in his interview with Ziegler I believe, that he told Raykovitz who the kid was. That's why no one at the Second Mile was concerned.

He had lived with Jerry and they knew Jerry was like a Father to him. Why do you think a licensed Child Psychologist, trained professional, and Pennsylvania State Mandated Reporter merely told Jerry to wear swim trunks?

Raykovitz testified that the only reason he told him to wear swim trunks was because in 2001, with the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts situations being exposed, times were changing and it was best to be careful.

He also testified that what Curley told him never rose to the level where ANYBODY (not just a Mandated Reporter) needed to report under the "Laws of the Commonwealth".

Remind me to never take the advice of a professionally trained, licensed child psychologist, who is a Pennsylvania State Mandated Reporter of child sexual abuse. The Pennsylvania Court System, by their actions, tell me I could end up with my a$$ in the slammer.

 

[marshall23]

"I'm beginning to think you have some sort of vested interest in this".
I'm starting to think the same. A few others also.

There are many people who have a vested interest in this. Why do you think they needed a JVP to bury their culpability? Even so, it has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. No other university published a "Freeh Report" to blow its own brains out......not Baylor, not MSU....it just isn't done. Why PSU? Because they hired Freeh who promised "to make every effort to provide the DESIRED results."

 

[WDLion]

There are many people who have a vested interest in this. Why do you think they needed a JVP to bury their culpability? Even so, it has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. No other university published a "Freeh Report" to blow its own brains out......not Baylor, not MSU....it just isn't done. Why PSU? Because they hired Freeh who promised "to make every effort to provide the DESIRED results."

I was referring to other board posters.

 

[indynittany]

....Laws and procedures are written in such a way that the cover the majority of situations. This one was unique for the reasons above and should have required more attention.

Certainly not by a college football coach.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It’s not dishonest. I have explain that several times. It doesn’t charge the “of a sexual nature” part at all.

Wow, you are bad at language.

"I don't know what you call it" is a modifier that puts the accuracy of the first part in question.

 

[marshall23]

I was referring to other board posters.

I know. I have no doubt people lurk here to read the smoke signals and subvert conversations etc. The risks are too big to leave any stone on turned.

 

[denniskembala]

I attempted to start out in this sub-thread with simple questions. Was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

I agree that calling police was a rational option. And that the Clery Act doesn't prevent it in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.

I didn't misread the clause in the Clery Act. I used that to explain why certain things were written into the university procedure. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

I am not attempting to use the Clery Act as a justification for not contacting law enforcement. (Feel free to ignore that & go back to my original question - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?)

You're right that all of those provisions relate to a known victim. That's the point. There's nothing really in the Clery Act, Title IX laws, current or former university procedures, or even in the current CPSL about what to do with an unknown victim. So again I'll ask - was there anything in the procedures that could have confused things?

Does all this seem to highlight a big procedural gap existed back then?

Did you know Freeh was specifically charged with reviewing all of the university's procedures and identifying any gaps that existed? The gap was obviously found since it was fixed with the adoption of AD72.

Here's some ore background on all that:



https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/memory-issues.171360/page-6#post-2743277


To be clear, I am not trying to make excuses for anyone. I'm trying to understand what might have happened and identify any lessons learned that should have been communicated but weren't.

If it is possible Paterno, Curley, or Schultz consulted that procedure, I am not saying there were afraid to violate it. But the procedure is clear that the victim should have as much control as possible over what happens with any reporting that is made. The whole point of that philosophy is to encourage victims to come forward primarily so they can get medial and psychological services, because it's been long recognized many victims are afraid to come forward because they fear going to police and the thought of having to relive the event in a confrontational court situation.

And yes, there are situations where victims can't be given full control because reporting to police is absolutely mandated, but the procedures are very clear that they have to be informed before that occurs.

So going back to 2001. Did those men receive a clear and unequivocal report of sexual assault? Maybe not. Were there strong suspicions? I think so. Had any of those men been involved in reports of sexual assault before? I think that's likely. How many of them involved a victim who was insistent that things be taken care of, but that they didn't want to go to police? Perhaps some; maybe even a majority? Is it possible they understood the importance of respecting a victim's wishes is the right thing to do, and that the victim's physical and emotional health is an extremely important factor to consider? I think so.

Had that child victim and/or his parent(s) come forward I tend to think they would have all they could to assist him. In the absence of a victim coming forward, what do you think they thought was the right course of action? Find a way to get information to that boy's parent(s) and let them know they were aware of a suspicious situation and had a witness? Maybe talk to the head of the offender's charity - the guy most reasonably able to identify that boy - as a way to get information to the parent(s)? And allow the parents to decide what the best course of action was for their son's emotional well-being?

To be honest - I have no idea if the procedures back then guided any of the actions those men took.


But doesn't it seem reasonable that it should be considered as a possibility, at least as it relates to illustrating potential lessons learned? How many universities do you think adopted specific child abuse procedures since PSU did in May 2012? How many universities only have procedures aimed at university students in order to be compliant with the Clery Act and Title IX?

FYI - I've looked into whether Michigan State has policies that adequately address child abuse. They do. However, I've only been able to find the policy that was updated on 1/1/2015, after MSU had conducted a three month investigation that cleared Larry Nassar of an allegation in 2014, and most recent revision to the policy before that was in June 2011.


Last point for your consideration. Here's some Title IX guidance from the Department of Educations's 4/4/2011 Dear Colleague letter, which was sent to universities to remind them of their responsibilities to take immediate and effective steps to respond to sexual violence in accordance with the requirements of Title IX.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

Schools also should inform and obtain consent from the complainant (or the complainant's parents if the complainant is under 18 and does not attend a postsecondary institution) before beginning an investigation. If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, the school should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation.

The ultimate question.....did Joe or anyone else HAVE TO call police in 2001?

Based on what was told, NO!

 

[indynittany]

You forgot Raykovitz. Raykovitz knew who the kid was.

Raykovitz testified under oath that Jerry told him it was a Second Mile kid, and Jerry said, in his interview with Ziegler I believe, that he told Raykovitz who the kid was. That's why no one at the Second Mile was concerned.

He had lived with Jerry and they knew Jerry was like a Father to him. Why do you think a licensed Child Psychologist, trained professional, and Pennsylvania State Mandated Reporter merely told Jerry to wear swim trunks?

Raykovitz testified that the only reason he told him to wear swim trunks was because in 2001, with the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts situations being exposed, times were changing and it was best to be careful.

He also testified that what Curley told him never rose to the level where ANYBODY (not just a Mandated Reporter) needed to report under the "Laws of the Commonwealth".

Remind me to never take the advice of a professionally trained, licensed child psychologist, who is a Pennsylvania State Mandated Reporter of child sexual abuse. The Pennsylvania Court System, by their actions, tell me I could end up with my a$$ in the slammer.

Bruce Heim offered up the facilities of the Hilton Garden Inn, in which he was part owner, as an alternative for Jerry to use for his work outs with TSM kids. No person in his right mind would expose his own business to that kind of risk if he had any inkling Jerry might be abusing kids.

This whole incident was much ado about nothing. It's time to find out why, and at who's direction, that it was made the centerpiece in the case against Jerry Sandusky.

 

[indynittany]

Wow, you are bad at language.

"I don't know what you call it" is a modifier that put the accuracy of the first part in question.

"I'm not sure what it was."

 

[marshall23]

Jerry Sandusky's Charity functioned for years as the right arm of The Commonwealth's child welfare organizations in Centre County. Some employees of TSM (see Jack Raykovitz) actually were contracted to do work by these state agencies. Sandusky's "victims" were all processed thru The Second Mile. Yet it was Penn State and its administrators that were accused of "covering up" Jerry's crimes? LOL
This is a big lie that Goebbels would be proud of.

 

[WDLion]

Bruce Heim offered up the facilities of the Hilton Garden Inn, in which he was part owner, as an alternative for Jerry to use for his work outs with TSM kids. No person in his right mind would expose his own business to that kind of risk if he had any inkling Jerry might be abusing kids.

This whole incident was much ado about nothing. It's time to find out why, and at who's direction, that it was made the centerpiece in the case against Jerry Sandusky.

Unless it was another pedo.

 

[Connorpozlee]

This is not a normal situation. The pedo was a long time employee of Joe’s and a public figure. More importantly, he had access to children through his own charity. Jerry was so “dedicated” to that charity that prevented Joe himself from recommending JS as a successor.

Laws and procedures are written in such a way that the cover the majority of situations. This one was unique for the reasons above and should have required more attention.

Normal situation, abnormal situation, unheard of situation, general situation, unheard of situation....... doesn’t matter. Joe handled it the way he should have.

 

[getmyjive11]

Certainly not by a college football coach.

Why not?

 

[getmyjive11]

Wow, you are bad at language.

"I don't know what you call it" is a modifier that put the accuracy of the first part in question.

It meant that he knew it was a sexual act but didn’t know exactly what it was.

 

[psuro]

Why not?

Why?

 

[PSU2UNC]

"I'm not sure what it was."

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: Did he identify who that older person was?

Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.

Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

--
In the span of four questions, he expresses uncertainty in all four questions (thrice about what the incident was and once about what year Sandusky retired). Given his age, I'm not faulting him, but that's a lot of uncertainty.

 

[getmyjive11]

Normal situation, abnormal situation, unheard of situation, general situation, unheard of situation....... doesn’t matter. Joe handled it the way he should have.

Disagree. Not when you know the pedo has access to (as sick as this sounds...) a “buffet of children”. Not when he knows that 98 occurred. Not when Joe holds as much influence as he did.

 

[getmyjive11]

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: Did he identify who that older person was?

Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.

Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

--
In the span of four questions, he expresses uncertainty in all four questions (thrice about what the incident was and once about what year Sandusky retired). Given his age, I'm not faulting him, but that's a lot of uncertainty.

Yes, it means that he didn’t know what you would call the sex act, but it was a sex act.

 

[getmyjive11]

Why?

Por que no?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yes, it means that he didn’t know what you would call the sex act, but it was a sex act.

That's one interpretation of those words and would make perfect sense if you had never heard Joe give an interview. For those of us who were accustomed to Joe's speech patterns, there is no way that is what he meant.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yes, it means that he didn’t know what you would call the sex act, but it was a sex act.

People are so wrapped up on that line to this day. The question also clearly states without getting into graphic detail....so that in itself means it was watered down per the question. People will interpret that the way they want to...that is the reality of it.

 

[YYZ86]

"None."

Finally an honest answer.

However, while there may be reasons why it isn't protocol to call the police (I'm accepting your assertion at face value) that doesn't seem to be relevant to a scenario where a report of sexual assault was buried in house and not reported to proper authorities. (As far as the record currently stands.)

What would be the protocol (if there is any) for a situation where a teacher observes a faculty member sexually assaulting a student, and who then reports it to the Principal of the school, who then places the report in File 13?

Your situation is different from JP's. If I was said teacher, I would have to call the cops immediately. The protocol in JP's situation is to protect all involved including the investigation. I have no idea what training JP had in advance of this (probably not much if any). That is why doing what the protocol says would be the most prudent choice. What Colt wrote in this thread I feel is dead on regarding all involved. JR at TSM should have reported (had no choice) this immediately no matter what he was told. For some reason the state of PA doesn't care about that, and arguing about JP's involvement is meaningless compared to that. Finding out the reason why PA put the bulk of the emphasis on who they did will likely never see the light of day.

 

[indynittany]

Why not?

1) None of his business.

2) His involvement would only attract bloodthirsty press hacks and turn what may or may not have been a serious situation into a media circus.

 

[indynittany]

People are so wrapped up on that line to this day. The question also clearly states without getting into graphic detail....so that in itself means it was watered down per the question. People will interpret that the way they want to...that is the reality of it.

The reality is he was asked about fondling, a term which MM swore he did not use, and walked it back. No attempt to get Joe to clarify was made and because it was a grand jury hearing, there was no opportunity for Joe's attorney to cross examine.

Quit pretending Joe was on trial! He was a witness for the prosecution.

 

[getmyjive11]

That's one interpretation of those words and would make perfect sense if you had never heard Joe give an interview. For those of us who were accustomed to Joe's speech patterns, there is no way that is what he meant.

I heard Joe do hundreds of interviews. It doesn’t change a thing.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The reality is he was asked about fondling, a term which MM swore he did not use, and walked it back.

Quit pretending Joe was on trial!

Nobody is pretending anything indy....well other than you making up people's payrolls. #LIAR

 

[PSU2UNC]

I heard Joe do hundreds of interviews. It doesn’t change a thing.

Then this reinforces my opinion that you are terrible at language.

 

[getmyjive11]

Then this reinforces my opinion that you are terrible at language.

I guess the court is pretty bad with it as well as the public. But you... you have it down!

 

[Connorpozlee]

Disagree. Not when you know the pedo has access to (as sick as this sounds...) a “buffet of children”. Not when he knows that 98 occurred. Not when Joe holds as much influence as he did.

False premise. You don’t know he’s a pedophile. Not his place to use his “influence”.

Edited to point out that you don’t know at that time that Jerry is a pedophile.

 

[kgilbert78]

He certainly could have done more, particularly months later when nothing happened.

That's against all policies for handling CSA. You report it and get out of the way--and stay out of the way. Especially if you are not a witness. That's standard protocol. Unless you are famous, I guess.

 

[WDLion]

It meant that he knew it was a sexual act but didn’t know exactly what it was.

Did he tell you that's what he meant?

 

[Osprey Lion]

Did he tell you that's what he meant?

To people like you it is open to interpretation. For sane people it is very clear.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I guess the court is pretty bad with it as well as the public. But you... you have it down!

As others have pointed out, you are referring to a transcript of a transcript of testimony that was not cross examined.

The court (other than the GJ, which isn't a court) didn't hear the testimony. The only court that heard the testimony heard a third party read a written transcript of the original GJ testimony. I can tell you from court room experience that when testimony is read by a third party it becomes very difficult to know exactly what the original witness meant because you lose all subtleties. And this assumes that a) there were no errors in transcription (e.g. a missing question mark for example) and b) the reader didn't make any errors when reading it.

The fact that it was not cross examined is also important because if there was something that wasn't clear (which obviously there was since we are still f***ing arguing about this), the OAG had no incentive to clarify anything unless it helped them.

As for the "public" you like to keep referring to, I will quote the late/great George Carlin: "
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”