by Barry Bozeman - aurabass AT yahoo Dot Com
We want to explore another avenue concerning the emails used in the factFREEH Fiction. This information needs forensic analysis from a qualified computer lab like the FBI's digital forensics and we are calling for the Feds to step in and do that analysis. If this email has been tampered with the State Government is too conflicted to do a competent and fair analysis since the Attorney General Linda Kelly has proven herself untrustworthy with her prosecution of Curley and Schultz and her blatant Lie in the Grand Jury Presentment.
This is Exhibit 2A - the very first Exhibit in the Freeh Report used to establish that Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation and lied to the Grand Jury 13 years after the fact when he failed to recall any "additional allegations of criminal behavior" on the part of Jerry Sandusky
This is Exhibit 2A in the Freeh Report so you can go to this LINK and down to the Exhibits to prove this for yourself not using my images of the emails.
When you look at this email and use control + on your keyboard to blow it up you will see the large amounts of grey ghost like pixelation. Was this forged to add the Re: Joe Paterno subject line?
This is the email captioned Re Joe Paterno - Compare the grey pixelation above with the next email in the Exhibits. 2B below:
This email has no such pixelation around the text with the exception of the PERIOD following "Good Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve this quickly ". PERIOD
This email is also from Gary Schultz's computer from Gary Schultz to Tom Harmon with a further email to Tim Curley at the bottom. So this is not about different computers or different email programs.
THIS EMAIL IS CAPTIONED RE: Jerry but Freeh says "coach (in these emails) is presumed to be Joe"
Blown up it looks like This
Note how clear the text appears with the sole exception of the final PERIOD at the very end of "quickly"
I agree that we want to resolve quickly. period - That isn't like the grammar used by Schultz and begs the question Was there something added to this sentence that was eliminated in order to make it appear Schultz was seeking a quick resolution when he was not?
Could Schultz have written "we want to resolve quickly only if the investigation is complete and in the best interest of the children of The Second Mile." "We don't want to leave any loose ends or put any child at risk." ?
Note how only the faintest pixelation occurs in the rest of the word - the jagged edges of diagonals and curves in the q u c k and y. The single dot of the period is clearly different.
Attorney General Kelly has been shown to have perpetrated a lie with her Grand Jury Presentment and Press Conference: So it is imperative this question be resolved by a Federal
Investigator not subject to pressure from Kelly's office in Pennsylvania.
I just got off the phone with a former investigator for a Federal Agency who had a
great deal of experience with computer documents back in 2000 and before. He believes these emails need to be put through a thorough analysis at the FBI's digital fraud lab where they could definitely determine if there is tampering as appears to him to be the case.
I have informed the investigators for Farrell and Roberto about our findings so anyone who is reading this should spread it around until someone in the local Harrisburg/State
College media picks it up and takes it national - Sara Ganim are you there? If nothing else this provides enough information to launch and investigation of these emails and it cannot be done by Linda Kelly if you remember this:
The KEY thing to remember here is the Grand Jury Presentment on Nov 7th.and the Victim 2 section that contained a malicious bald faced LIE
VICTIM 2
On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant who was then 28 years old entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant , who was familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get some recording tape to watch. It was about 9:30pm. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. 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 looked into the showers. 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.
The Victim 2 section goes on to say Mike told Joe and then Tim and Gary exactly that: "He SAW a naked boy....... being subjected to anal intercourse"
This is what the Media jumped on the following day. Headlines were Assistant PSU Coach Sees Boy Being Sodomized - Tells Coach and Administrators Who Ignore It.
That is the story that stuck in the minds of millions of American's.
Joe Paterno heard about a kid being raped in the showers at his locker room and did nothing about it. OF course there was outrage and the Media Tsunami basically washed away any chance of reason or consideration
This image of Sandusky along with Curley and Schultz and the Victim 2 section of the Presentment sealed PSU's fate from the start - AND IT WAS A LIE.Attorney General Linda Kelly knew full well exactly what she was doing She had Sandusky's picture on an easel alongside Tim Curley and Gary Schultz
OF course we now know that McQueary did not see a sexual assault and said no such thing to Joe Paterno. At most he used the words "a sexual nature" and"fondling" in some context during a 10 minute meeting describing a 45 second locker room visit.
Obviously saying
"Hey coach I'm not sure what I saw with those 2 second glances but it could have be something of a sexual nature - maybe fondling or something like that"
in 4 seconds of a 10 minute talk is far different from saying
"Coach I saw Jerry sodomizing a young boy in a brutal sexual assault. It was anal intercourse"
The news stories would have been far different and far more accurate but Kelly was looking for sensationalism and boy did she get it at great cost to PSU and Joe Paterno.
.
So attorney General Kelly charged Sandusky with the Felony Count of Deviate Sexual Intercourse based on her presentment and her claim of McQueary's testimony.
.
But the Jury heard Dr. Dranov testify and say MIke was asked 3 times that night "Did you see a sex act"? and 3 times Mike answered "NO I heard it". referring to the 3 slapping sounds he thought were 2 adults going at it in the showers.
Please pass this on to everyone and lets get these emails into the hands of Federal investigators
Barry Bozeman
