The whole "MM involvement issue"

[bjf1984]

Has - obviously - reared it's ugly head again

A year or so ago, I wrote something that I think is relevant to our current discussions (some may remember it)
I think now would be a good time to review some of those issues...unfortunately my hard drive crashed earlier this week, so I can't simply re-post it, but I do have a hard copy....and so I plan to copy that document once I get "re-booted"

On the meantime, I will try to - if I get some time...it's a couple pages long - repost it here. I think some of us may find it relevant

 

[bjf1984]

Has - obviously - reared it's ugly head again

A year or so ago, I wrote something that I think is relevant to our current discussions (some may remember it)
I think now would be a good time to review some of those issues...unfortunately my hard drive crashed earlier this week, so I can't simply re-post it, but I do have a hard copy....and so I plan to copy that document once I get "re-booted"

On the meantime, I will try to - if I get some time...it's a couple pages long - repost it here. I think some of us may find it relevant

Part 1 (long)

"How did we get here?"

With the recent disclosures of selected e-mails from within the NCAA, it is becoming increasingly clear to even the most casual observer that the entire narrative of "Penn State football harboring a pedophile to protect the image of the football program" is and was a complete and utter fabrication.

If that was the case, why would the leadership of PSU - primarily a select control group of the PSU BOT - have ever allowed this obviously erroneous narrative to be utilized to wreck such havoc on the University? Were elements of the PSU BOT (John Surma?) so full of petty jealousies that they would sacrifice so much to satisfy their personal vendettas?

I do not think so.....although I do believe that sating their bewildering desire to extract revenge against certain elements of the football program was at least a welcome side effect for certain University "leaders". But I do not believe that those desires were the primary motivation for this incredible evisceration of the University.

Why then did these "leaders" at PSU not only submit to such punitive actions, but - in all likelihood - actively engage in constructing and protecting the narrative surrounding the penalties? If not out of pure jealousy and spite, the only logical reason is that it was done to divert attention from something else. Something that, if exposed, frightened them so deeply that they would stop at nothing to cover it up.

Part 2 next

 

[bjf1984]

Part 1 (long)

"How did we get here?"

With the recent disclosures of selected e-mails from within the NCAA, it is becoming increasingly clear to even the most casual observer that the entire narrative of "Penn State football harboring a pedophile to protect the image of the football program" is and was a complete and utter fabrication.

If that was the case, why would the leadership of PSU - primarily a select control group of the PSU BOT - have ever allowed this obviously erroneous narrative to be utilized to wreck such havoc on the University? Where elements of the PSU BOT (John Surma?) so full of petty jealousies that they would sacrifice so much to satisfy their personal vendettas?

I do not think so.....although I do believe that sating their bewildering desire to extract revenge against certain elements of the football program was at least a welcome side effect for certain University "leaders". But I do not believe that those desires were the primary motivation for this incredible evisceration of the University.

Why then did these "leaders" at PSU not only submit to such punitive actions, but - in all likelihood - actively engage in constructing and protecting the narrative surrounding the penalties? If not out of pure jealousy and spite, the only logical reason is that it was done to divert attention from something else. Something that, if exposed, frightened them so deeply that they would stop at nothing to cover it up.

Part 2 next

Part 2

I believe that we need to start at the beginning - the criminal investigation of Jerry Sandusky.

As we all know, the investigations surrounding Jerry Sandusky were ongoing for several years prior to the "bombshell" presentment of November 2011. For years the investigations dragged on. As exposed by the Kathleen Kane investigation, the prosecution was "inexplicably delayed". No presentment was forthcoming. The leaders of the OAG - despite the complaints filed by the Sandusky victims and despite the pleadings of the victims, their families, and members of the investigation team to please move forward with the prosecution and indictment - the prosecution DID NOT move forward and put an end to Sandusky's access to even more children.

Not until the prosecutor's office had elicited the testimony of Mike Mcqueary - and the infamous locker room incident - did the prosecution move forward. Why was this incident the catalyst that finally brought about movement in the Sandusky prosecution? Was this incident crucial to the successful prosecution and conviction of Sandusky?

Representatives of the prosecution team certainly tried to convince Mcqueary that his testimony WAS the key element in being able to prosecute Sandusky......without his testimony, they said, they would be unlikely to convict Sandusky. He (MM) was - in their words - "the key witness". Obviously, this was pure hogwash - and would be proven as such at the criminal trial.

The criminal prosecution and conviction of Sandusky was a fait accompli the moment that the Sandusky victims (now young men) took the witness stand, faced Jerry Sandusky at the defense table, and outlined the specific ways, times, and manners in which they claimed Sandusky sexually abused them. The testimony of Mcqueary about an incident with no identified victim, was completely and utterly useless and extraneous. In fact, despite convicting Sandusky of 45 of the 48 charges brought against him, the jury ACQUITTED Sandusky of the most serious charge ( Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse) related to the locker room incident

So, if the Mcqueary incident was so inconsequential to the prosecution of Sandusky, why was it not until Mcqueary's testimony was procured that the prosecution moved forward? Let us look at how the prosecution would have played out if the locker room incident had never occurred

Part 3 next

 

[91Joe95]

The biggest problem Mike has is the fact that both his dad and Dranov, the two most highly trained and knowledgeable people BY FAR, didn't think what Mike reported was a crime. Now, a certain poster thinks Mike was afraid for his job and put the welfare of children below it even though its absurd. However, since both Mike and Dukie won't deny it even though it's irrelevant to any court cases, then maybe there is some truth to his assertion that the well being of children was not Mike's primary concern.

 

[bjf1984]

Part 2

I believe that we need to start at the beginning - the criminal investigation of Jerry Sandusky.

As we all know, the investigations surrounding Jerry Sandusky were ongoing for several years prior to the "bombshell" presentment of November 2011. For years the investigations dragged on. As exposed by the Kathleen Kane investigation, the prosecution was "inexplicably delayed". No presentment was forthcoming. The leaders of the OAG - despite the complaints filed by the Sandusky victims and despite the pleadings of the victims, their families, and members of the investigation team to please move forward with the prosecution and indictment - the prosecution DID NOT move forward and put an end to Sandusky's access to even more children.

Not until the prosecutor's office had elicited the testimony of Mike Mcqueary - and the infamous locker room incident - did the prosecution move forward. Why was this incident the catalyst that finally brought about movement in the Sandusky prosecution? Was this incident crucial to the successful prosecution and conviction of Sandusky?

Representatives of the prosecution team certainly tried to convince Mcqueary that his testimony WAS the key element in being able to prosecute Sandusky......without his testimony, they said, they would be unlikely to convict Sandusky. He (MM) was - in their words - "the key witness". Obviously, this was pure hogwash - and would be proven as such at the criminal trial.

The criminal prosecution and conviction of Sandusky was a fait accompli the moment that the Sandusky victims (now young men) took the witness stand, faced Jerry Sandusky at the defense table, and outlined the specific ways, times, and manners in which they claimed Sandusky sexually abused them. The testimony of Mcqueary about an incident with no identified victim, was completely and utterly useless and extraneous. In fact, despite convicting Sandusky of 45 of the 48 charges brought against him, the jury ACQUITTED Sandusky of the most serious charge ( Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse) related to the locker room incident

So, if the Mcqueary incident was so inconsequential to the prosecution of Sandusky, why was it not until Mcqueary's testimony was procured that the prosecution moved forward? Let us look at how the prosecution would have played out if the locker room incident had never occurred

Part 3 next

Part 3


Without Mcqueary's testimony, the case against Sandusky is :

Scenario 1: "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - charged with sexually abusing young boys. Sanhdusky utilized the Second Mile charity to contact and groom young boys to abuse"

As opposed to :

Scenario 2: "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - utilizes notoriety of football program to lure young boys into sexual abuse. Penn State football program provides cover for and enables Sandusky to engage on ongoing sexual abuse of young boys"

Given that all of the FACTS to date indicate that Scenario 1 is the truth, and Scenario 2 is a fallacy, what is the motivation for the development and perpetuation of Scenario 2? Clearly, until the prosecution could be framed as "Scenario 2", the people responsible for the investigation had no desire to move forward with prosecuting Sandusky. Why?

MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT MCQUEARY'S TESTIMONY:

What would have happened if the prosecution went forward without, or prior to, procuring Mcqueary's testimony? Clearly, based on the trial record, the prosecution could have successfully convicted Sandusky of numerous felony charges related to child sexual abuse. Would they not consider this a righteous action? Why did they not do so?

Within the framework of Scenario 1 - "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - charged with sexually abusing young boys. Sandusky utilized the Second Mile charity to contact and groom young boys to abuse", what ramifications would have followed a Sandusky conviction?

I do not think it would take a lot of supposition to expect that the Second Mile would fall under tremendous scrutiny. Answers would be demanded as to how such a charity, led by trained child welfare professionals, and certified by multiple state welfare agencies could have allowed it's clients to be repeatedly abused by Sandusky. It would not be unfair to assume that the Second Mile and it's leadership would have been under tremendous pressure. I fact, logic would dictate that the Second Mile SHOULD HAVE been scrutinized even under "Scenario 2"

And yet, to date, the Second Mile / the leadership of the Second Mile / and Pennsylvania's child service agencies have essentially escaped ANY meaningful investigation. Why? I think the answer is clear - the media narrative, and the decisions of the prosecutors office, allowed for the public's blood lust to be sated by eviscerating Penn State, the Penn State football program, and - maybe most importantly - by tearing down and demonizing a man previously deified for his saintly image. The diversion of the public's attention to the "disgrace at Penn State" allowed the parties most directly involved in Sandusky's activities to emerge unscathed - and un-examined. To the great detriment of all Pennsylvanians

Part 4 next

 

[bjf1984]

Part 3


Without Mcqueary's testimony, the case against Sandusky is :

Scenario 1: "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - charged with sexually abusing young boys. Sandusky utilized the Second Mile charity to contact and groom young boys to abuse"

As opposed to :

Scenario 2: "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - utilizes notoriety of football program to lure young boys into sexual abuse. Penn State football program provides cover for and enables Sandusky to engage on ongoing sexual abuse of young boys"

Given that all of the FACTS to date indicate that Scenario 1 is the truth, and Scenario 2 is a fallacy, what is the motivation for the development and perpetuation of Scenario 2? Clearly, until the prosecution could be framed as "Scenario 2", the people responsible for the investigation had no desire to move forward with prosecuting Sandusky. Why?

MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT MCQUEARY'S TESTIMONY:

What would have happened if the prosecution went forward without, or prior to, procuring Mcqueary's testimony? Clearly, based on the trial record, the prosecution could have successfully convicted Sandusky of numerous felony charges related to child sexual abuse. Would they not consider this a righteous action? Why did they not do so?

Within the framework of Scenario 1 - "Jerry Sandusky - former PSU football coach - charged with sexually abusing young boys. Sandusky utilized the Second Mile charity to contact and groom young boys to abuse", what ramifications would have followed a Sandusky conviction?

I do not think it would take a lot of supposition to expect that the Second Mile would fall under tremendous scrutiny. Answers would be demanded as to how such a charity, led by trained child welfare professionals, and certified by multiple state welfare agencies could have allowed it's clients to be repeatedly abused by Sandusky. It would not be unfair to assume that the Second Mile and it's leadership would have been under tremendous pressure. I fact, logic would dictate that the Second Mile SHOULD HAVE been scrutinized even under "Scenario 2"

And yet, to date, the Second Mile / the leadership of the Second Mile / and Pennsylvania's child service agencies have essentially escaped ANY meaningful investigation. Why? I think the answer is clear - the media narrative, and the decisions of the prosecutors office, allowed for the public's blood lust to be sated by eviscerating Penn State, the Penn State football program, and - maybe most importantly - by tearing down and demonizing a man previously deified for his saintly image. The diversion of the public's attention to the "disgrace at Penn State" allowed the parties most directly involve in Sandusky's activities to emerge unscathed - and in examined. To the great detriment of all Pennsylvanians

Part 4 next

Part 4

I'm fact, among all the actions undertaken to divert the spotlight onto Penn State, Penn State football, and Paterno/Spanier/Schultz/Curley - perhaps the most telling was the submission by PSU "leaders" to the claims of the Sandusky victims.
Numerous individuals, claiming to be victims of Sandusky (some of whom provided testimony at Sandusky's trial, most of whom did not), have received multi-million dollar settlements awarded by the same PSU "leaders" who helped to create, foster, and protect the false narrative. Of INCREDIBLE significance in these settlements is the requirement demanded by PSU "leaders" that the settlement checks only be awarded after the victims agreed to waive their right to pursue legal action against the folks most responsible - including the Second Mile.

In what way is protecting the Second Mile from scrutiny a legitimate concern of PSU? Obviously, it is not a concern of PSU.......and in fact, in protecting the Second Mile from scrutiny, PSU acted not to "protect the children", but I'm fact may have allowed dangerous elements to avoid detection and lie in wait to victimize even more children on the future.

What are they - the so called "leaders" of Penn State - hiding? What are they trying to protect? If we financed an investigation by Louis Freeh, I am sure he could find it "reasonable to conclude" that these Penn State "leaders" and the leaders of the PA OAG :

1 - Knowingly and willingly acted to hinder the investigation into the Second Mile and PA Child Service agencies

2 - Engaged in actions that put additional children at risk for sexual abuse

3 - Continue, to this day, to fail in their fiduciary duties to Penn State and their sworn obligations to protect all citizens of the Commonwealth"
____________________

That's it. Written about a year ago (when the Corman suit was in its early stages)

 

[bjf1984]

Part 4

I'm fact, among all the actions undertaken to divert the spotlight onto Penn State, Penn State football, and Paterno/Spanier/Schultz/Curley - perhaps the most telling was the submission by PSU "leaders" to the claims of the Sandusky victims.
Numerous individuals, claiming to be victims of Sandusky (some of whom provided testimony at Sandusky's trial, most of whom did not), have received multi-million dollar settlements awarded by the same PSU "leaders" who helped to create, foster, and protect the false narrative. Of INCREDIBLE significance in these settlements is the requirement demanded by PSU "leaders" that the settlement checks only be awarded after the victims agreed to waive their right to pursue legal action against the folks most responsible - including the Second Mile.

In what way is protecting the Second Mile from scrutiny a legitimate concern of PSU? Obviously, it is not a concern of PSU.......and in fact, in protecting the Second Mile from scrutiny, PSU acted not to "protect the children", but I'm fact may have allowed dangerous elements to avoid detection and lie in wait to victimize even more children on the future.

What are they - the so called "leaders" of Penn State - hiding? What are they trying to protect? If we financed an investigation by Louis Freeh, I am sure he could find it "reasonable to conclude" that these Penn State "leaders" and the leaders of the PA OAG :

1 - Knowingly and willingly acted to hinder the investigation into the Second Mile and PA Child Service agencies

2 - Engaged in actions that put additional children at risk for sexual abuse

3 - Continue, to this day, to fail in their fiduciary duties to Penn State and their sworn obligations to protect all citizens of the Commonwealth"
____________________

That's it. Written about a year ago (when the Corman suit was in its early stages)

Hopefully, among other things, this puts the relevance of the MM testimony into proper context.

Hopefully it helps us all see who the Scoundrels and Scumbags are.....and maybe we can focus our attention on where it is most deserved