There was one incident that involved the shower room in 2001 at Penn State.
Most or all of the information concerning that incident was contained in the office log of Joe Paterno, or on a separate typewritten brief on the incident.
The incident was in the daytime. It had nothing to do with reports of people in the shower. Sounds were heard and reported. Nothing was found to cause further suspicion. The matter was noted and forgotten. (Joe Paterno made a note of the incident in the office log, That morning.) At 9:30. *The mob would say, “How does he know that about the office log entry?” There was no other shower room incident in 2001. The information concerning sounds being heard from the shower room in 2001 did not apply to the other shower room incident where McQueary said that he saw Sandusky. The Sandusky incident happened and was reported to Paterno by McQueary the next morning around 9:30 in 2002. Claiming that information concerning the 2001 shower room incident was about Sandusky, and accusing the defendants of failing to report suspected child abuse, led to criminal prosecutions. Where investigators obtained the 2001 information was not revealed. Why the information was not checked by prosecutors or the defense is now the question. Was the information from 2001 obtained from an illegal source? I say that it was. The illegal source would be Joe Paterno’s office log. Journal. Daily log. Whatever you want to call it. The information from 2001 wasn’t available any place else. And someone took the information. Like an animal taking the bait from a trap. Except the trap didn’t spring. It’s not a matter of who originally obtained the information, and how, so much as it is a matter of who it was in the Grand Jury that obtained the information from them. Illegally. And knowing later that the information did not pertain to Sandusky. And that the incidents from 2001 and 2002 were completely different. But calling for charges to be pressed anyway. And also using the tainted and falsified information as evidence in court. And accusing Penn State officials of covering the information that they knew had nothing to do with what they charged Sandusky with. Information that was never told to them by McQueary in the first place. *And also, to answer the mob question about how I knew that the information about the shower room incident in 2001 was written in Joe Paterno’s office log, it is because I was there when he wrote it into the log, that morning. I also knew that Mr. Sandusky was often times faced with parents and children who made certain claims. Or spread rumors about certain things. Over a period of more than a decade. None of the claims or rumors were ever found to be true. None of his accusers in court had any proof of ever filing a complaint to police or contacting any other person about what they claimed he did. Including the fist claimant who was not accepted as a credible witness. Found to be not telling the truth about 2001. Considering the fact that there was no incident or complaint or any evidence to prove any suggestions to that effect. Not to police. Authorities. Church . Parents. Grand parents. Friends. Siblings. Neighbors. The same was true in the testimony of the other claimants. There is a want for monetary settlement by the claimants. The truth is that Jerry sandusky was convicted on rumor, insinuations, false evidence, false testimony, and specifically hearsay. And nothing more. Some of the hearsay testimony that was recorded and shared with the public is completely preposterous. Hearing details of incidents that allegedly took place in open and public places….. well let’s just say I doubt that anything like that happened in the swimming pool.
After thoughts about the trial:
I studied and researched the Sandusky history and case. After my memory came back, somewhat, not totally… I’m trying to say that at first the trial didn’t mean anything to me until I remembered the 2001 incident. That’s where this started, because I knew about the 2001 incident and that Paterno put info about the 2001 incident in his journal. I knew they were using the 2001 info to suggest that Penn State was covering the 2001 information up. But I knew the 2001 information was only in Paterno’s logbook. And I knew that it didn’t have anything to do with Sandusky, because I was there in 2001.
I remembered , later, about the man who looked like Sandusky. He commented on it to me. I know that his grandson was a wild acting little boy. I didn’t know why. The time frame fits. I think McQueary saw that man and his grandson in the shower room, not Sandusky.
I knew that if nobody said anything about the swimming pool incident for all those years, there’s no way the coaches at Penn State could have known about it. Listening to , or, reading the testimony about 2001 being dismissed and the testimony about the swimming pool being so absurd as to not being believable, I had a conclusion about doubts. Knowing that the person came and claimed 2001 as real, I knew that it wasn’t. Sandusky was not charged with 2001. The prosecutors tried to say that 2001 meant 2002. Or that McQueary was wrong and 2002 was actually 2001. It wasn’t. The prosecutors charged officials anyway with covering the 2001 information, claiming that 2001 was about Sandusky when they knew by then that it wasn’t.
Tree-Blue Rose- Mist impressionistic abstract by Don Robbins (pastel)