FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

[WHCANole]

Let me just hop in here and refute most of these. Not sure I have time to rebut all the BS.

​

Fact 1
Joe Paterno never covered up for Jerry Sandusky. From the State Prosecutors Office. Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina,

I thought he was a liar and thoroughly dishonest person ?! So, you believe him when he says what you want but not when you don't like it.

the man who led the Sandusky investigation, told 60 Minutes Sports Armen Keteyian he has examined all evidence and found no evidence that Joe Paterno participated in a cover up of any sort.

Fina and McGettigan Both said in that interview that Paterno didn't do enough.

Joe Paterno did put Mike McQueary in DIRECT touch with both AD Tim Curley,

yes

Joe Paterno’s direct supervisor,

Well, on paper but not really

and Gary Schultz who had oversight of University Police Department.

Yes but Schultz never told the PSU police about the report of CSA

PSU Police Force is the real Police. The Penn State police force comprises 46 armed officers. According to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner."

Fact 2
Joe Paterno never interfered with the justice system. Carmine W. Prestia Jr. I've lived and worked in State College for the past 41 years: 25 with the State College Police Department, one year of retirement, and 15 years as a magisterial district judge. Never once in my time as a police officer or judge has anyone in the football program asked me to cover up anything, withdraw a charge, or do something else unethical. I certainly saw a number of players get in trouble. Offenses ranged from simple summary offenses to felonies of the first degree.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/co...gn-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system,988524/

Joe participated in the decision NOT to report Sandusky. As made clear in the Freeh report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

Fact 3
When Mike called home MOMENTS after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary told his father TWICE he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy. Regardless of what Mike now "claims" hours, weeks, months, years later Mike witnessed no sexual act. After that phone call, everything he told/testified to others about what he saw that was not that he SAW NOTHING SEXUAL was manufactured in his head.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witnesspenetration or ANYTHING ELSE you can verify?” His son AGAIN said NO.

Here is what Dranov said at Sandusky's trial MM told him that night.
Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.
Quite a bit different than what you posted.

Fact 4
The Grand Jury report incorrectly stated that Mike McQueary had witnessed a rape. See also fact #3. Joe Paterno was never told a report of a child was being raped.

True but he was told of CSA. His own testimony shows that.

Mike McQueary has testified that he never witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in the shower, and didn’t tell anyone that he did.

He told the OAG that he thought that is what he saw. Anal Sodomy, but did not see penetration

Because of the lack of evidence, Jerry was not convicted of a rape with regard to this 2001 incident.

But WAS convicted of four other counts one a felony

Also no victim testified in this incident. There has been no one who has come forward that has been found to be truthful that they were sexually assaulted in the shower that night in 2001.

Disputed. He was known about during the trial but the Defense refused to call him.

There has been a person who has come forward to say that he was there with Jerry that night and was not sexually assaulted.

Disputed

There were THREE not guilty verdicts in the Sandusky case and one of them was Count 7 --the incendiary allegation of a rape (IDSI) -- made by Mike McQueary regarding the 2001 incident.

And 45 guilty verdicts.

Fact 5
Joe Paterno was praised by the Attorney General office for his correct handling of the Jerry Sandusky incident in 2001. Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did the right thing and reported an eye-witness report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in the football locker room in 2001, according to the indictment released this morning by the state Attorney General.

That was before the Freeh Report was released showing the emails that proved Joe knew about 1998 and that he had participated in the decision not to report Sandusky. He was dead by then and the OAG declined to speculate what that would have happened had Joe lived.

Fact 6
Joe Paterno did not ask Mike McQueary to stay quiet on the 2001 incident. Mike said no one ever gave him instructions to not talk about it. Mike said Coach Paterno was great about the whole thing.

True, but MM, knowing his place in the pecking order knew he had to stay quiet and let Joe "handle" it or face professional suicide.

Fact 7
The Office for the Attorney General did not feel Joe Paterno’s reporting of Jerry Sandusky were cause to be fired. Paterno is accused of no wrongdoing, and in fact authorities have said he fulfilled his legal obligations by reporting to his superiors. Based on the Feb. 2, 2012 subpoena directed at PSU by the US DOJ, Paterno was not a target or even mentioned. Nor did any of the information requested pertain to Paterno.

Not really their call and probably PR to not more inflame the cult of Joe.

Fact 8
Child Welfare agencies approved Jerry Sandusky to adopt 6 children. These were agencies that were educated and trained to spot people who were harmful to children. Jerry Sandusky also fostered dozens more children approved by these agencies. The agencies continued to place the children in Jerry Sandusky’s care over the years, and continued to allow Jerry Sandusky access to children at the 2nd Mile charity for at-risk youths.

He was a Pillar of the Community.

Fact 9
The 2nd Mile Charity and youth agencies provided Jerry Sandusky access to trouble youths. The 2nd Mile gave one on one access to mentors and youth through The Friend and Friend Fitness programs, which pair up adults with children in the hope of fostering positive role model-mentor relationships. The Friend Fitness Program is a mentorship program involving college and elementary students who join together and participate in healthy, educational activities. The Friend Fitness program was available only in Centre County for adolescents.

See Above

Fact 10
Joe Paterno didn’t agree with giving 2nd Mile charity access to PSU facilities for 2nd Mile use in Jerry Sandusky retirement package due to insurance liability issues. Joe was overruled. In the Jerry Sandusky Penn State Retirement Package in 1998- Sandusky asked for access to training and workout facilities. Paterno put a check mark next to that request to deny that request. In a sidebar, Paterno asked if this was for Sandusky's personal use, or for Second Mile kids, and indicated that due to liability problems, facility access should not be extended to Second Mile kids. Paterno was overruled and Jerry Sandusky was granted access to bring Second Mile kids to workout facilities for the 2nd Mile Friends Fitness program.

Irrelevant

Fact 11
Jerry Sandusky was retired from Penn State in 1999. He did not coach at Penn State after 1999 and wasn't coaching during the 2001 incident. For his retirement package he received Emeritus Status. The state was offering 30-year employees a handsome buyout, and Paterno believed Sandusky should take it. Paterno was frustrated that Sandusky spent so much time working on his youth foundation, The Second Mile, that he was not available to help in recruiting and other coaching duties. “He came to see me and we talked a little about his career,” Paterno said. “I said, you know, Jerry, you want to be head coach, you can’t do as much as you’re doing with the other operation. I said this job takes so much detail, and for you to think you can go off and get involved in fundraising and a lot of things like that.. . . I said you can’t do both, that’s basically what I told him.” Even Louis Freeh, could not find a connection to Jerry retiring (see the Freeh report beginning at page 55.)

Agreed

Fact 12
Due to Jerry Sandusky Emeritus Status, Joe Paterno and Penn State could not remove Jerry Sandusky’s access to Penn State Facilities because he had not been convicted of a crime. Emeritus Status (entitles bearer to a lifetime office and lifetime access to campus) The Freeh report (page 81) states that University counsel (Cynthia Baldwin) said that the University could not legally revoke Sandusky's access to the athletic facilities because of his Emeritus status, and because he had not been convicted of a crime. Page 106 reiterates this. Page 107 adds that Baldwin said "his access could not be eliminated without the University being sued."

But PSU COULD have enacted a campus wide policy that forbade children showering alone with adults not their parents and were negligent not to do so. Further that policy could have required anyone who saw such to report it and then if Sandusky violated that policy they could take action. Finally, the Emeritus status ONLY applied to Sandusky NOT bringing children on campus and showering with them

Fact 13
In the Jerry Sandusky trial, no victims testified against Jerry Sandusky that they were abused on Penn State’s campus in 2001. Also zero victims testified in the trial that they were abused on PSU campus after 2001. MM also testified in the 12/16/11 prelim that after 2001 he never once saw JS around the program with a kid again.

Not true. Victim 5 was assaulted at Lasch later that same year. He tesitified at Spanier's trial

Fact 14
Joe Paterno had no knowledge of 1998 Jerry Sandusky incident being a crime. What was eventually known is that Jerry Sandusky was exonerated. The 1998 incident was reported to police and thoroughly investigated by all agencies. The police went as far to set up a sting operation by recording conversations Sandusky had with the boy’s mother. The incident was investigated to the fullest extent and the District Attorney concluded no crimes were committed. DPW didn't even think there was enough cause to "indicate" Jerry Sandusky (a much lower standard is needed for this vs. bringing criminal charges btw) nor did they remove his 1 on 1 access to kids after the 1998 claims.In accordance with 055 Pa. Code § 3490.91. regarding the confidentiality of child abuse reports, the information regarding the nature of the 1998 child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky was not provided to Timothy Curley, Dr. Graham Spanier, or Joe Paterno. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Department of Public Welfare, County Youth Services, and the 2nd Mile which is a state licensed children's charity didn't limit Jerry Sandusky access to children after this incident.

Yet we know from the emails that CSS and Joe knew about 1998 and followed it closely. Further, a licensed PhD psychologist who had worked with that victim sent a letter to the PSU police indicating that Sandusky was a "likely pedophile" and it was ignored by PSU.

credit to well known poster

 

[WHCANole]

Baldwin is a known liar.

Says you

 

[WHCANole]

Reviewing ESPN's "The Paterno Legacy" with John Ziegler — Lions of Liberty On the show today we revisit a case that has been talked about a lot on this podcast, the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State/Joe Paterno scandal. This means that the foremost expert on this case, John Ziegler, is back. The motivation to revisit this case was an ESPN E60 produced this week titled “The Paterno www.lionsofliberty.com

I watched some of that. Do you know Ziegler says that Franco Harris is the reason that the BOT cabal conspired against Joe? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 It's really Franco's fault! What a bunch of lunacy. Because you cite stuff like this is why I know you are a fraud.

 

[jerot]

IMO the article tries paint the picture that Paterno somehow could have stopped Hodne earlier. That seems to be crap.

I don’t know from the article that Paterno knew players were going to the preliminary hearing in support of Hodne - of course Hodne was entitled to the presumption of innocence and support of his friends and teammates at that point.

Once it was clear he was guilty it is also clear Paterno had less than zero interest in helping and in fact could be accused of witness tampering in the opposite direction in his statement that Hodne was guilty and the threat that if the player testified on his behalf he’d be off the team - a threat he apparently followed through with.

To me, the article wants to imply that Paterno’s call to Karen was to intimidate her but the only quote we got was, “Are you OK?” IMO hardly intimidating but I have no experience as a female victim of sexual assault.

I try not to be an apologist for Joe as I think he did what he should have but also believe he should have asked more questions or simply said, “I don’t want that guy around campus, period.” His referral to supervisors and hands off approach, while probably appropriate, seems short of what his true influence was.

Sort of.

Remember, back on May 1, 2009, deputy state attorney general Eshbach wrote a formal request to initiate a grand jury probe of Sandusky. Nineteen months later, the state attorney general's investigation of Sandusky the alleged serial pedophile, had produced only one alleged victim, the brainwashed Aaron Fisher.


To make matters worse, the first grand jury that heard Fisher testify didn't believe him, so they issued no indictment.
But in November 2010, the A.G. got a tip about the shower incident that Mike McQueary had supposedly witnessed a decade earlier, a breakthrough that suddenly energized the Sandusky investigation.
On March 10, 2011, the state attorney general convened a second grand jury. They were aided by reporter Sara Ganim, who on March 31, 2011, wrote the first story about the secret grand jury probe of Sandusky that revealed for the first time the allegation that Sandusky was a serial sexual abuser of children.
The Ganim story basically functioned as a want add for the A.G.'s office to recruit more sex abuse victims.
The state police and the attorney general's office promptly created a seven-member joint task force and sent them out knocking on the doors of hundreds of young men who were alums of Sandusky’s Second Mile charity for disadvantaged youths, hunting for alleged victims.
But the joint task force didn't have much success.
As one frustrated investigator emailed on June 3, 2011, as recounted by author Mark Pendergrast in his book, “We have recently been interviewing kids who don’t believe the allegations as published and believe Sandusky is a great role model for them and others to emulate.”
On Jan. 4, 2012, Anthony Sassano, a narcotics agent from the state attorney general's office who led the Sandusky investigation, testified that the special task force interviewed 250 men who were former members of the Second Mile charity, but found only one man who claimed to be a victim of abuse.
Ask yourself a simple question. If Jerry Sandusky was allegedly the most notorious pedophile in America who's been on rampage in a small town of 42,000 for nearly four decades, why does the state have to create a special joint task force to go out knocking on doors, and hunting down victims?
Shouldn't they be lined up around the block?

But then the grand jury presentment hit the media. On Nov. 10, 2011, Business Insider ran a story predicting that Penn State wound wind up paying Sandusky's accusers a total of $100 million.
Suddenly, every plaintiff’s lawyer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had been alerted about a possible jackpot at Penn State. All they had to do to hit the lottery was to round up some guys who were willing to claim they were abused.
In seeking a lottery payoff, these alleged victims wouldn't even have to give up their real names. The media, for sure, could be counted on to keep their identities secret. While they were vilifying and destroying Jerry Sandusky's name and reputation every day.
After Sandusky was convicted, the floodgates opened, and 41 men filed civil claims for damages. Thirty-six of them would eventually get paid.
And it didn't require any heavy lifting.
Penn State had hired Kenneth Feinberg, dubbed “The Master of Disaster,” to oversee the settlement process with victims. Feinberg specialized in a global approach to settlements, rather than duke it out in court with one individual claim after another.
At Penn State, Feinberg prepared a form for alleged victims that merely required their lawyers to make their allegations, as part of what was billed as a “claims resolution process."
The claims as submitted in more than 120 pages of confidential records that the press or public has never seen, are entirely devoid of evidence.
None of the initial claims were authenticated by signed affidavits, there were no reports of forensic evidence or witness testimony, or corroboration of any kind. Except when a few of the victims who were pals got each other to vouch for their stories.
The stories of the alleged victims, which were often improbable, and featured constantly changing details, remain completely unvetted to this day.
Jack Rossiter, a former FBI agent of 30 years, investigated more than 150 cases of alleged sex abuse as a private detective employed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia between 2003 and 2007.


As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter told Big Trial he was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims ever told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.
Got that? Over four decades, in at least 500 alleged sex crimes involving 36 innocent victims, there was not one contemporaneous report of abuse.

If a pedophile was running loose for that long in small town, Rossiter said, "You would think someone would pick it up. Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
On top of that, in a scandal involving national publicity, like the Sandusky case, Rossiter said, if you were a gate keeper at Penn State, you'd have to be on guard against criminals and drug addicts coming forward to seek a pay day.
"With national headlines and all these people lining up, you'd have to be more skeptical" of the claims," Rossiter said.
But Penn State never even ran background checks to see if any of the alleged victims had criminal records. When Big Trial checked, we found that 12 of the 36 alleged victims who got paid did indeed have criminal records, including arrests for tampering with and fabricating physical evidence, identity theft, criminal conspiracy, theft, receiving stolen property, theft by deception, robbery and terroristic threats.
The way the system is supposed to work, somebody at Penn State should have investigated the stories told by the alleged victims.
"That's what you do, you investigate," Rossiter emphasized. "The key is to find corroboration for the victim's story, to see if their stories hold up."
But Penn State didn't do any of that. Instead, they just wrote checks.
Why? Because the trustees had already decided that they would pay any price to save their beloved Nittany Lions.
As for Jerry Sandusky, and his constitutional rights, nobody gave a damn.
The Defendant's Medical Records
In their civil claims of abuse, the 36 alleged victims portray Sandusky as a sexually insatiable predator with the virility of a male porn star in his 20s. According to the claims, Sandusky was constantly on the prowl for forced sex with boys, and never had any problems achieving an erection.
Sandusky’s medical records, however, from 2006 to 2008, depict a man in his 60s suffering from all kinds of ailments and conditions, including atrophied testicles and chronic prostatitis.

A doctor who reviewed Sandusky’s medical records, but asked to remain anonymous, told Big Trial in an email, “This guy couldn’t get an erection no matter how he tried. Even Cialis/Viagra would probably not work.”
The doctor added that because the medical issue was never raised at trial, Sandusky should have sued his lawyers for malpractice.

Doctors described Sandusky as having an “androgen deficient state,” meaning he had levels of male sex hormones so low it was unhealthy. Sandusky’s medical records state that he was undergoing “testosterone replacement therapy for significant low levels of both free and total testosterone.”
Sandusky's medical records reveal that he was being treated with antibiotics for chronic prostatitis, an inflammation of the prostate commonly caused by bacterial infection that results in frequent and painful urination. Prostatitis can also cause sexual problems such as low libido, erectile dysfunction, and painful ejaculations.

Sandusky’s chronic prostatitis began in 2005 and continued through 2008, his medical records state. Doctors described Sandusky as being “light-headed” and suffering “dizziness” from using Flomax, which he began taking in 2006, because he was having trouble urinating.

In addition to his urological problems, Sandusky’s medical records list many ailments that raise the question of whether Sandusky was healthy and energetic enough to be out having rampant, promiscuous sex with all those boys.
Sandusky’s ailments include cysts on one of his kidneys, a small aneurysm in his brain, a 2006 hernia operation, bleeding hemorrhoids, chest pains, headaches, drowsiness, elevated blood pressure, and sleep apnea.
He was on thyroid medication when he went to the doctors and told them he began “falling apart” in 2005. By 2008, his doctors wrote, Sandusky reported he was falling asleep at the wheel and gotten involved in two car accidents.

The medical records also describe a distinctive feature of Sandusky’s anatomy that none of his accusers have ever mentioned.
On February 2, 2006, Dr. Frank B. Mahon at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, who was treating the 62-year-old Sandusky for chronic prostatitis, wrote that Sandusky had “small” testicles of “perhaps 2 cm” or centimeters each, which equals .787 of an inch. The average size of adult testicles are between two and three inches.

On December 18, 2008, another doctor at the Hershey Medical Center wrote that the 6-foot-1 210-pound former coach, nearly 65, had “marked testicular atrophy with very little palpable testicular tissue.”

In stark contrast to the way he is portrayed in the claims against him, a couple of law enforcement types who have observed Sandusky in close quarters describe him as an anomaly in the hyper-macho world of football coaches, saying he comes across as asexual.
There may be genetic reasons for that. Sandusky’s medical records state that as a boy, he had “delayed development of secondary sexual characteristics” that required shots, but they don’t say what kind of shots. Sandusky told his doctors he was “unable to have children” because his “sperm counts were low.”

Sandusky's medical records state that he suffered from hypothyroidism, [underactive thyroid] as well as hypogonadism, meaning his body didn’t produce enough testosterone to maintain good health.

The medical records, which date from 2006 to 2008, cover the same time period during which a couple of key trial accusers, Aaron Fisher and Sabastian Paden, claimed they were being raped hundreds of times by Sandusky.
Fisher settled his civil case against Penn State for $7.5 million. Paden, whose lawyers won in court access to all the confidential records in the Penn State case that are still under a judge's seal, got the biggest pay out of all the alleged victims, $20 million.

Totaling up the allegations made in 36 civil claims that were paid, the alleged victims stated that they had been raped or sexually abused by Sandusky at a minimum of least 520 to 620 times.

At his trial, Sandusky’s lawyers never used his medical records in his defense, probably because they didn’t have time to even read boxes of grand jury testimony, or serve subpoenas on witnesses.

In prison, Sandusky’s appeals lawyer said, he remains on a half-dozen medications, including continuing testosterone replacement therapy, and Terazosin for continuing prostate infections.

There’s another angle to the story of Sandusky’s medical records -- there are 36 alleged victims who got paid after claiming they were raped and abused hundreds of times by Sandusky, including nine alleged victims who claim that Sandusky had engaged with them in high-risk and apparently unprotected anal sex.
Yet not one of these alleged victim has ever asked to see Sandusky’s medical records, to find out whether he had HIV or any venereal disease. Nor has any victim ever sought to have Sandusky tested for any diseases.
That's the kind of evidence that would aid a criminal case. In a civil case, if Sandusky was found to have infected his victims with disease, it would have raised the damages.

But in the Penn State case, none of the alleged victims ever pursued the disclosure of any of Sandusky’s medical records.
You have to ask why.


And whether the answer is because it never really happened.

Jerry Sandusky is a relic from another time. He's an only child who was the son of Polish immigrants. His father, Art Sandusky, a trolley conductor, was the coach of a local baseball team who ran a recreation center that took in troubled kids and hired disabled people as employees.
At the recreation center, the motto hung on the wall by Sandusky's father said, "Don't give up on a bad boy, because he might turn out to be a great young man." Jerry Sandusky, a devout Methodist who grew up in that rec center, adopted his father's mission, and was out to save the world one troubled kid at a time.
At the rec center, it was a common practice for men and boys to shower together. When Sandusky first got in trouble in 1998, for taking a shower with 11 year-old Zachary Konstas, after a complaint from the boy's mother, the incident wound up being investigated by authorities that included an official from the Centre County Children and Youth Services, a detective from the Penn State police, an investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, the boy's therapist, as well as a psychologist hired by the county.
The authorities concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or of any sexual conduct whatsoever, so the mother's alleged claim was officially deemed unfounded. As recounted in The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, by author Mark Pendergrast, the psychiatrist who questioned young Zach Konstas for an hour concluded:

"The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not unusual for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread, acceptable situation and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years."
The problem in the Sandusky case is that the customs of an earlier time, as in a communal shower for men and boys, are being viewed through a modern lens.
Since he couldn't have kids of his own, Jerry and his wife Dottie adopted six children, five girls and a boy. Only one of those adopted kids, Matt Sandusky, who took his adoptive dad's name, would ultimately claim to be abused.
According to author Mark Pendergrast, after Matt sat next to his adoptive mother on the first day of the Sandusky trial and heard the alleged victim spout accusations of abuse that were the result of recovered memory therapy, Matt came home and told one of his siblings, "This is ridiculous. Anyone can make accusations without evidence, and get paid. I could, you could, anyone could . . . but I actually have morals."


Three days later, Matt famously flipped. After first telling authorities he hadn't been abused, Matt gave a statement to the police that said that after he went to a psychiatrist, he had recalled memories of past abuse. His flip earned him an appearance on Oprah, and a civil settlement of $325,000.


The other five of Sandusky's adopted kids, however, told Pendergrast that they'd never been abused, and that they didn't believe that Matt had ever been abused either.
I'll leave the last words to the man who's been in prison for the past ten years as a result of egregious official misconduct and a decade of media malpractice.
"I am an innocent person, wrongly convicted by sinister ways of deception, dishonesty and disregard," Sandusky wrote from prison.



"I did not commit the heinous crimes I was accused of doing. Oral and anal sex never entered my mind, nor did I ever engage in them with anybody. This includes my wife, who has been my only sexual partner and loyally stands with me today."
"I didn't hurt those kids, nor did they act like I did," Sandusky wrote. "My focus was on helping them."

 

[WHCANole]

Except that I have. You just refuse to admit it.

You have not

I think the facts back up my opinion.

They do not

LOL @ faculty. Nope:
She is a post-graduate fellow at UF

Columbia Journalism School Names Sara Ganim a Spencer Education Journalism Fellow - UF College of Journalism and Communications

Read more

www.jou.ufl.edu

making a whopping $43K per year.

So you were wrong that she is unemployed? But will you admit it? 🤣

I always pay my bets. You never admit you are wrong even when presented with mountains of evidence that you are.

See above. You are also a liar and would never pay any bet. Therefore I would not bet with you.

it is true that beer taste is an opinion, but you strike me as someone who thinks IPAs are the superior style of beer.

Then you would be wrong......again

You've seen a form that the federal government generated and that I pulled from my EoPF account. I only removed PII from it.

Those forms can be "made" by anyone with the form. It is not proof of anything.

It's not a conspiracy for an organization or an individual to act in their own self interest.

But that's what conspiracy theories are. People acting corruptly in their best interests. Your conspiracy narrative have several of those Freeh was directed by the BOT, OAG and the NCAA(not sure how they ALL could direct him what to do at the same time) to reach a conclusion favorable to them (no proof of that whatever THAT was). Then the ENTIRE OAG is corrupt and acting to convict Sandusky and CSS. Finally, the media is complicit in the conspiracy to get clicks (when opposing such narrative would get them more).
It's pure insanity. But then claiming to be a heroic scientist with stolen valor is crazy too.

I disagree with her decision to publish but she should not have had access to the information that she did.

Pentagon Papers too?

Don't care. Irrelevant to this case.

No it's not same principle. Reported published leaked document. Do you agree with the leaked SCOTUS draft of the case overturning Roe? Hypocrite.

The Pulitzer apparently isn't what it used to be. Between erroneously awarding this to her and then backing her on her short lived (and lie filled) podcast, the Pulitzer has to re-examine its mission and process.

🤣 I'll pass your ideas on to them, as a phony heroic scientist, I'm SURE they will take that advice. LOLOLOL

Nope. I showed the freaking NSF certificate, Boots.

Those photos are all over the internet as I showed Rooster

You didn't, but it wouldn't surprise me. She's a piece of trash, just like you. Zero chance she responds to me even if I had her email.

On her worst day she is a better person than you. You, a hateful lying POS who hates children and defends a pedophile.

 

[WHCANole]

I don't. You haven't been specific.

I have

Absolutely 100% real.

100% fake

I like making you look like an asshole. It's getting too easy though. Please try harder to be a normal human being and not a raging sphincter.

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

I've explain why I won't, because not only would be do evil things with my name but you will also insist I've made it up. So there's not point of me providing my name.

Hiding again. Knew you would. Coward You also know I would make sure that the person you were impersonating was informed and then 💩 for you!

Not even close to porn. Greatest comedy of the past 10 years.

You think porn is comedy? What does your mommy think?

 

[WHCANole]

Because you say so? You are discounting the published peer reviewed articles that I cited based on nothing.

I could find other articles that say otherwise but you don't read what I cite anyway.

Lots of people (including myself) have stated this.

Who?

You don't understand what the word conspiracy means.

Yes I do and you believe in one.

Compared to a random janitor also charged with CSA? Sure. But compared to any other criminal charge, they do not.

Not true. The odds were against convicting him. That's why it took so long to put the case together.

If they were innocent mistakes, why were they not corrected when MM pointed them out and objected to them?

Why don't you ask them?

I'm not great with photoshop. All I did was blur out my PII. Everything else is original. Happy to convince you another way with these documents if you like. But you aren't getting any PII.

Coward, fake and liar

Then STFU. Stop asking me for PII.

I'm not asking you for PII. You are lying again.

You don't even have to admit you are wrong, just stop talking about it and stop calling me a liar. I'd be happy to drop it if you do.

Not a chance

I'm not, I'm trying to get you to STFU about my identify so I can go back to making you look silly about the case.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Only because you will not accept proof that any normal person would accept.

Most normal people would not accept faked internet docs.

I didn't make any "claim." I stated my job. For reasons that are known only to God (ha! see what I did there), you questioned it.

You did make such a claim and if challenged have the burden of proof. You have not met that burden and until you do I will continue to call you a liar. I'm glad you are getting in touch with you spiritual side.

So the accusation was made by you and the burden is on you to prove that I am lying.

Nope. can't prove a negative

I'm sure if I said I was an insurance salesman you wouldn't have batted an eye. Why is this any different??

I've explained why in your crazy mind pretending to be a scientist helps your arguments. I think you have a complex about appearing to be the "smartest man in the room" so this fake persona helps that. But I would need more time with you to determine that fully. But you are creepy so I don't think that will happen. I could help you on this board though.

Just to be clear you think every internet handle is unique and no one can use the same handle on another platform?

Nobody else is using that handle

Wow you are dumb.

And you are not as smart as me so that must make you a cretin.

I am not a gamer, so obviously someone else uses my twitter handle. BFD. It's not me and you cannot prove it is me (because it isn't).

It's you. The profile is stupid and immature. Like you.

So slow the **** down with accusing me of being a racist.

Why did you wear blackface them

And STFU about stealing valor. I've done more for my country than twenty of you.

Liar, disgusting liar.

I defend innocent men. Get ****ed.

You defend disgusting criminals. Shame on you!

 

[WHCANole]

You are the one who claims to have "secret files" that show how guilty everyone is. Why not open up the records? Make them public. Why not?

(answer: because that's not how the world works. No one gives up confidential info when they don't have to).

Kind of like you hiding behind an internet handle claiming to be a heroic scientist?

 

[AvgUser]

Yep, what I can’t figure out with these cultists why not open up all the records? Let’s see the truth.
Or do they want to play lawfare ?

Please, yes, share all the records. That will work both ways.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Kind of like you hiding behind an internet handle claiming to be a heroic scientist?

If he's a scientist, he sure is dumb. The materials that show what actually happened is called evidence. These clowns think every shred of evidence is publicly released during the trial. Baldwin's testimony was disallowed for example. What did she have to say? Put her on a panel with the three jail birds and let's hash this out.
Like that will happen lol.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Please, yes, share all the records. That will work both ways.

It's OAG and state police evidence you potato.

 

[jerot]

1. Find one post where I ever quoted or praised Fina speaking about Paterno or Paterno's role.
2. According to the official CYS/DPW investigation, the 1998 case was unfounded. No criminal charges. Hence there was nothing to know about 1998. No perjury.

All you need to know about Fina and Baldwin.

Lawrence J. Fox, a longtime Philadelphia lawyer who's a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, is an expert on teaching legal ethics and professional responsibility.

And Fox has harsh words for the conduct of former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky case, as well as for Cynthia Baldwin, the former Penn State counsel who represented three top Penn State officials before the grand jury investigating Sandusky. That was before Baldwin flipped, at the behest of Fina, to become a prosecution witness, and testify against her former clients, an act of betrayal that horrified Fox.

"When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed," Fox wrote in a 2013 filing recently unsealed in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court.

Tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Philadelphia, Fox will testify as an expert witness on behalf of the state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board, to make the case that former prosecutor Fina is guilty of professional misconduct. But for those who can't wait for the hearing, Fox's scathing opinions of the alleged legal sins of Fina and Baldwin are laid out in the recently unsealed filing that has been completely ignored by reporters from the mainstream media; the same reporters who sought to have these documents unsealed. So it goes in the Penn State case, where media malpractice has been the norm.

"It is the Commonwealth whose lawyers were fully aware of the conflicts under which Ms. Baldwin was laboring at the time of the grand jury proceeding," Fox wrote, clearly referring to Fina, who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury after she flipped.

Fina was aware that Baldwin had a conflict of interest, Fox wrote, namely her decision to betray her former clients. Yet, Fina and his fellow prosecutors "stood silent," Fox wrote, and "took full advantage of the conflicts" to gather information to make a conspiracy and obstruction of justice case against those clients. But as part of his mission to seek the scalps of the three Penn State administrators, Fina had to mislead the grand jury judge, Fox wrote.

The prosecutors "never informed the court of the nature and extent of the conflicts" of interest posed by Baldwin's dual role in the case, Fox wrote. So that the court could fulfill its duty of assuring that the "rights of Messrs. [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz and [former Penn State athletic director Tim] Curley to effective representation were not systematically violated in the extreme."

In the unsealed filing, Fox ripped the Commonwealth's defense of Fina's actions.

"The Commonwealth actually asserts that because Messrs. Schultz and Curley were aware that Ms. Baldwin was general counsel for Penn State, they should have understood that they were merely second-class clients, and, as a result, are entitled to no attorney-client privilege whatsoever," Fox wrote.

But the Rules of Professional Conduct do not mention "a watered-down second-class version of clienthood," Fox wrote; the rules of Professional Conduct only define "one form of clienthood" that's subject to the attorney-client privilege.

Before she flipped, Fox wrote, Baldwin announced to "Schultz and Curley, the court, the grand jury, as well as the Commonwealth's lawyers" that she represented Schultz and Curley. But as their lawyer, Fox wrote, Baldwin was "required, in fact, to represent both of them to the full extent required by her fiduciary duties . . . the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, the Pennsylvania statutory provisions covering the right to counsel before a grand jury" as well as the U.S. Constitution.

But in reality, Fox wrote, while Baldwin was representing her clients, "her fingers were crossed behind her back, and she never fully intended to fulfill that obligation, let alone warn them they would not receive the benefit of attorney-client privilege because of their second-class status."

"The law governing the attorney-client privilege in a joint representation is clear," Fox wrote. "There can be no waiver of the privilege unless each client has given his or her informed consent . . . to waive the privilege."

But the record of the case "demonstrates that there never was so much as a telephone call" to let Schultz and Curley know that the Commonwealth was seeking a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and that Baldwin was planning to testify against her clients, Fox wrote.

By not telling her former clients she was about to stab them in the back, Fox wrote, Baldwin "turns the law of privilege literally upside-down, rendering it a false protection and leaving the clients helpless before the power of the Commonwealth."

That certainly was OK with Frank Fina. As for Baldwin, Fox wrote, her "sins here are both manifold and manifest. Turning against one's client is the greatest betrayal a lawyer can commit."

"But that is what Ms. Baldwin did here, stripping the clients of any opportunity to object to her misdeeds," Fox wrote. "Either she was subpoenaed to the grand jury or she voluntarily agreed to appear. Either way, she ran right through the red light by, in fact, testifying before the grand jury without notice to her former clients."

"No lawyer is permitted to disclose confidential information without the informed consent of the client," Fox wrote. "As a result of Ms. Baldwin's misconduct, Messrs. Schultz and Curley went six months without being aware of Ms. Baldwin's betrayal, and only learned of her shocking abandonment of her former clients when the new indictment was issued. Ms. Baldwin's conduct in this regard cries out for relief."

Fox labeled Baldwin's conduct as a "blatant betrayal . . . unprecedented in the annals of lawyer representation of clients."

And according to the disciplinary board's petition against Fina, it was Fina who set up that blatant betrayal by hoodwinking Judge Barry Feudale, then presiding over the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

On Oct. 22, 2012, Fina and Baldwin appeared before the judge in a conference to discuss Schultz and Curley's claim of attorney-client privilege in light of Baldwin's imminent appearance before the grand jury where the Commonwealth planned to have Baldwin testify against her former clients.

The petition notes that lawyers for Schultz, Curley, as well as former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was also formerly represented by Baldwin, were not invited to the conference. At the conference, the petition says, Fina told the judge regarding the attorney-client privilege that he intended to "put those matters on hold" until the judge made a decision regarding the privilege, and "we can address that later on."

Penn State's counsel then argued that the judge should make a ruling on the attorney-client privilege first, before Baldwin testified. But Fina told the judge, "We need not address the privilege issue," because "we are not going to ask questions about" the grand jury testimony of Schultz and Curley, "and any preparation for, or follow-up they had" with Baldwin, Fox wrote.

Fina asked the judge to keep Baldwin's testimony secret so "We can address this privilege matter at a later date." That prompted the judge to tell Fina to proceed under the assumption that "you're not going to get into any inquiry as to [Baldwin's] representation" of her former clients.

But Fina double-crossed the judge, as well as broke the rules of professional conduct. And that's not only Fox's opinion, but it was also the ruling of the state's Superior Court, when they threw out eight charges Fina filed against Spanier, Schultz and Curley.

On Oct. 26, 2012, Fina questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, and "did elicit" what the disciplinary board described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications between Baldwin and Curley, Schultz, and Spanier" as well as "confidential information" pertaining to the three former clients.

Fina's questioning of Baldwin was "calculated," the disciplinary board wrote, to solicit damaging information that would attack the credibility of Baldwin's three former clients. In the petition, the disciplinary board proceeded to list 73 examples from the grand jury transcript where Fina elicited confidential testimony from Baldwin that violated the attorney-client privilege, according to the petition filed by Paul J. Killion, chief disciplinary counsel, and Amelia C. Kittredge, disciplinary counsel.

That's 73 examples folks, of Fina bending the rules, and the judge going along with it. Without a defense lawyer in the secret chambers of the grand jury to say a word of protest on behalf of Baldwin's three former clients.

The actions of Fina and Baldwin in the grand jury were so egregious it prompted the state Superior Court to throw out a total of eight charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy against Schultz, Curley and Spanier.

Baldwin has already been called to task for her alleged ethical lapses. At a two-hour disciplinary hearing on May 23 in Pittsburgh, Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, contended she wasn't guilty of any misconduct. She testified that after she received grand jury subpoenas for Curley and Schultz, she allegedly told them, as well as Spanier, that she couldn't be their personal lawyer because she was representing Penn State. Baldwin also asserted that she told the Penn State officials their communication with her wouldn't remain confidential, and that they were free to get outside lawyers to represent them.

"Don't be nervous. Just tell the truth," Baldwin testified that she advised Curley.

Baldwin testified that both Curley and Schultz described a shower incident allegedly witnessed by whistleblower Mike McQueary back in 2001 involving Sandusky and a naked boy as "horseplay." Baldwin also contended that she asked the Penn State officials if they knew of any documents describing that incident that had been requested by a subpoena from the attorney general's office, and that her clients replied that they didn't know about any such documents.

Baldwin testified she felt "duped" when months later, a file kept by Schultz documenting the shower incident involving Sandusky was turned over to investigators.

In court records, Baldwin's former clients, however, tell a different story. They contend that Baldwin did not inform them of the risks of appearing before the grand jury, and misled them about the grand jury's mission. Schultz also stated that he told Baldwin about the file he kept on Sandusky.

Baldwin's former clients contend in affidavits that because of her inept representation, and outright deception about the grand jury's true mission, Baldwin transformed her clients into sitting ducks for Frank Fina.

"Ms. Baldwin informed me that the grand jury investigation focused on Jerry Sandusky, not on me or PSU, and that I was being called purely as a witness," Schultz wrote in an affidavit recently unsealed in Dauphin County. "Ms. Baldwin told me that neither I nor PSU were under investigation," Schultz wrote. "She told me that I could have outside counsel, if I wished, but at that point, seeing all the stories [of the Penn State officials] are consistent, she could represent me, Tim Curley and Joe Paterno as well."

Schultz said he told Baldwin he might have a file on Sandusky still in his office, and that it "might help refresh my memory" to review its contents. But Schultz said that Baldwin told him not to "look for or review any materials."

"Ms. Baldwin also told me that PSU and I were not targets of the investigation and that I would be treated as a witness," Schultz wrote. "There never was any discussion of the Fifth Amendment privilege or the risk of self-incrimination."

"I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was looking out for my interests," Schulz wrote. "Based on her representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."

In his affidavit of Oct. 25, 2012, Schultz wrote that Baldwin only told him he needed a separate lawyer "approximately one week before the charges were filed against me."

Former Penn State University President Graham Spanier made similar, disturbing claims about the actions of Baldwin.

In a Jan. 16, 2013 affidavit, Spanier wrote that prior to his grand jury appearance, Baldwin "did not reveal that I had been subpoenaed, and I believed that I was going voluntarily. She did not inform me that Penn State and I were targets of the investigation. As far as I knew, the investigation focused solely on Sandusky."

When Spanier appeared before the grand jury in 2011, "I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me during and in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was acting in my best interests," Spanier wrote. " Although Ms. Baldwin mentioned that I was entitled to a separate attorney, she did not encourage me to retain one, or explain why I might want one. Based on her representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."

"On the day of my grand jury testimony, Ms. Baldwin accompanied my swearing in" before the judge, and "stated that she was representing me in connection with my testimony," Spanier wrote. "And I had no reason to think otherwise."

"Ms. Baldwin sat with me in the grand jury room," Spanier wrote. "I was asked by the OAG attorney whether I was represented by counsel. I responded that I was, and identified Ms. Baldwin. She did not say anything."

"Ms. Baldwin first told me that I should retain a separate attorney on Nov. 8, 2011, after Sandusky, Schultz and Curley had been indicted," Spanier wrote. "At no point did I waive my right to confidentiality in my communications with Mrs. Baldwin or otherwise waive attorney-client privilege."

Tomorrow, it will be Fina's turn to answer those charges of misconduct.

In a response to the disciplinary board's accusations, Fina's lawyers, Dennis C. McAndrews and Joseph E. McGettigan 3d, contend that Fina "has not violated any rule of conduct" and they request that the board dismiss the charges against him.

In attempting to extricate Fina from his ethical dilemma and blatant misconduct in flipping the pliable Baldwin, Fina's lawyers resorted to wrapping themselves up in the flag of righteousness in the Sandusky case. They did that by pointing out the jury verdict, the pretrial demonization of Sandusky by a hysterical media, and the actions of pliable judges in the case who kept giving the prosecutors nothing but green lights.

It's like the scene in Animal House, where Otter is confronted before a kangaroo student court with charges that he and his fellow frat brothers at Delta house "broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests."

"We did," Otter says, winking at Dean Wormer, an admission that Fina's lawyers won't be making tomorrow. Otter then asks the dean and the court if it's fair for them to hold "the whole fraternity system" accountable for the actions of "a few, sick, twisted individuals?"

And if they're going to indict the whole fraternity system, Otter asks, "isn't this an indictment of our educational systems in general," as well as "an indictment of our entire American society?"

"Well," an indignant Otter sniffs, "You can do whatever you want to us, but I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" Then he and the Deltas march out of the courtroom humming the Star-Spangled Banner.

In their filing, Fina's lawyers describe their client as "instrumental in convicting the most notorious serial child molester in American history." Fina, according to his lawyers, was also "developing evidence that administrators at [Penn State] . . . failed to act in accordance with their legal, professional and/or ethical responsibilities in taking steps to prevent future harm to the children of this Commonwealth by that predator."


The lawyers assert that Fina did nothing improper before the grand jury. To do that, they quote the Louis Freeh report, which has some serious credibility problems, and Judge Feudale, the grand jury judge subsequently removed by the state Supreme Court amid allegations of misconduct and an alleged loss of objectivity.

In remarks quoted by Fina's lawyers, the discredited judge concluded that nothing went wrong in his courtroom after Fina plainly lied to him about what he was planning to do with Baldwin. And that after "a careful review of the testimony of attorney Baldwin before the grand jury," Judge Feudale concluded that "Baldwin's testimony did not [in this court's review] violate any attorney-client or work product privilege."

Never mind those 73 damaging quotes contained in the court transcript.

Fina's defense, as laid out by his lawyers, seems pretty lame. According to our system of justice, every accused defendant, even a serial killer, deserves a lawyer in their corner who would at least tell them if they're the target of a grand jury investigation. Cynthia Baldwin flunked that basic test. And then she went out and sold her clients down the river, behind closed doors in the grand jury, and neglected to tell them about it.

And speaking of Frank Fina, why did he have to lie and cheat and break the rules during that secret grand jury proceeding, where he already had the judge on his side, and he held all the cards?

If his cause was so righteous, why did Frank Fina have to cheat to win?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Says you

Well she praised Spanier during his federal security clearance and accused him to the OAG.

So she lied about one of those.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I watched some of that. Do you know Ziegler says that Franco Harris is the reason that the BOT cabal conspired against Joe? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 It's really Franco's fault! What a bunch of lunacy. Because you cite stuff like this is why I know you are a fraud.

Not exactly what he said, but as I've said before with Ziegler I tend to focus more on the original data (interviews and documents) that he presents than I do with his theories.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You have not

I have. Just admit it.

They do not

You have a very poor understand of the facts and/or how to interpret them.

So you were wrong that she is unemployed? But will you admit it? 🤣

This program sounds like it is more of a graduate program than a job (that would also explain the low income).

Spencer Education Fellowship | Columbia Journalism School

journalism.columbia.edu

They audit classes and do research. That sounds like a program of study, not a job. So I believe it is not inaccurate to say that she is unemployed. If you want to consider a fellowship a job (I'm not sure that in the journalism field I would), she is at a minimum under employed in that she is a 35 year old former Pulitzer Prize winner.

See above. You are also a liar and would never pay any bet. Therefore I would not bet with you.

You'd lose so whether or not I would pay up is immaterial. But I've offered to have a third party mediate any bet we'd make.

Those forms can be "made" by anyone with the form. It is not proof of anything.

Whether or not they *can* be is not relevant here. This form was downloaded from my EoPF account. That's all you need to know.

But that's what conspiracy theories are. People acting corruptly in their best interests.

Wut? So when I ate lunch today that was a conspiracy theory? When I look both ways before crossing the street, that a conspiracy? You are ridiculous. Everyone acting independently in their own best interest is the OPPOSITE of a conspiracy.

But then claiming to be a heroic scientist with stolen valor is crazy too.

If it weren't true it might be crazy only that it would be an extremely weird thing to lie about. But it is true, so not relevant.

No it's not same principle. Reported published leaked document. Do you agree with the leaked SCOTUS draft of the case overturning Roe? Hypocrite.

I don't give the reporter any credit for publishing an illegal leak. They should not win any awards.

🤣 I'll pass your ideas on to them, as a phony heroic scientist, I'm SURE they will take that advice. LOLOLOL

I'm sure they will take your phone call. LOLOLOLOL.

Those photos are all over the internet as I showed Rooster

So? I personalized my photo for you. Not too many other Nole's on the internet asking to see Antarctic service medals I wouldn't think...

On her worst day she is a better person than you. You, a hateful lying POS who hates children and defends a pedophile.

On her best day, she isn't even in the ballpark with me intellectually or morally.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I have

You haven't. Independently verifiable (without using PII) is very tricky. You must be specific.

100% fake

Nothing fake about me, ostrich ****er.

Hiding again. Knew you would. Coward You also know I would make sure that the person you were impersonating was informed and then 💩 for you!

You'd be informing me about me, so not sure what you'd be hoping to accomplish. No, I mean you'd accuse me of being racist and a pedophile (both completely untrue). So no chance you will ever know my name.

You think porn is comedy? What does your mommy think?

Did you click on the link? Definitely not porn.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I could find other articles that say otherwise but you don't read what I cite anyway.

Just because you can find some other article from some fringe website that says it doesn't trump Columbia Law review and peer reviewed legal publications.

Who?

You obviously don't follow this story. There are lots of people who have said this in a variety of forums. Even you bff Ziegler is in this camp.

Not true. The odds were against convicting him. That's why it took so long to put the case together.

It took so long to put the case together because he is innocent. They had to carefully construct their lies before they had a chance to win in court.

Why don't you ask them?

Ask Eschbach? Do you have her contact info? I'm guessing she won't respond.

Coward, fake and liar

Brave, real and 100% truth. Meanwhile, you **** sick ostriches.

I'm not asking you for PII. You are lying again.

You are asking me for my name. If you aren't asking me for my name, please tell me what information you would consider to be "independently verifiable." If it isn't PII, I will provide it no problem.

Not a chance

Then, I'll keep beating you down and making you look dumb. It's quite amusing.

Most normal people would not accept faked internet docs.

Agreed, but nothing has been faked. Most normal people would accept that someone is who they say they are when they have zero reason to lie about it.

You did make such a claim and if challenged have the burden of proof. You have not met that burden and until you do I will continue to call you a liar.

It's not a "claim"; it's a common statement. It's like if I say "I'm a male US Citizen". That's not a "claim." A "claim" would be "I can run faster than you" or "I am better at basketball than you are."

I'm glad you are getting in touch with you spiritual side.

Nice that you missed my joke completely. Maybe you don't know about this case as you think you do. For the record, there is no God.

Nope. can't prove a negative

You conflate "proving a negative" (I cannot disprove beyond any doubt that there is no God) with "disproving a falsity." If you say that you are seven feet tall, we can measure and prove that you are not seven feet tall. That is disproving a statement. Which is what you could do in this instant, if I am lying. But I am 100% who I claim to be.

I've explained why in your crazy mind pretending to be a scientist helps your arguments.

It was brought up originally to refute an insult about my level of education. That's all. You went batshit about it for some reason. Maybe you always wanted to be a scientist and mommy wouldn't buy you a graphing calculator. Or maybe you are too dumb to take college level science classes. You hate science for some reason.

I think you have a complex about appearing to be the "smartest man in the room"

It's not an appearance. It's usually the case.

Nobody else is using that handle

There obviously is.

And you are not as smart as me so that must make you a cretin.

Unless you are playing dumb on this site, I am so much smarter than you it isn't even funny.

It's you. The profile is stupid and immature. Like you.

It isn't and I am neither of those things.

Why did you wear blackface them

Never had, never would.

Liar, disgusting liar.

100% true. Just accept it. Or ask me for that singular magic piece of "verifiable" information that will shut you up. Bring it.

You defend disgusting criminals. Shame on you!

Nope, just innocent men. Huzzah for me!

 

[PSU2UNC]

Spanier went to jail for lying.

He went to jail (unjustly) for EWOC, not perjury.

You can't even keep your own lies straight.

 

[jerot]

Wouldn't it be more productive and therapeutic if we returned this thread to a discussion of whether we hate ESPN, SI, or Emmert more?

Gotta go with Emmert...reminds me of the episode of The Office when Michael says - if he were in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden and Toby (the HR rep) and had a gun with two bullets, he would shoot Toby twice.

Nah, too easy with Ganim.

Pulitzer time.

On the tenth anniversary of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Sara Ganim is hosting a podcast where she claims that Shawn Sinisi, a previously unknown alleged victim of Jerry Sandusky's, was the first alleged Sandusky victim to die as a result of that alleged abuse.

"In so many ways, Shawn Sinisi was a textbook abuse victim: he was ashamed, confused, angry, unable to admit or discuss what had happened," Ganim says on the new podcast, The Mayor of Maple Avenue, which was Shawn Sinisi's nickmame. "He was a child who seemingly overnight went from a happy go lucky and outgoing kid to a quiet, distant, and then troubled young man."

"He began to escape his pain and bury his memories of abuse with drugs and alcohol," Ganim said. "He became an addict. And when his addiction led him down a darker path, he was given yet another label: criminal."

There's only one problem with Ganim's tragic story of abuse. Shawn Sinisi, who grew up in Altoona, PA, isn't around to speak for himself; in 2018, he died of an overdose of heroin laced with fentanyl, at 26. But "during his lifetime," wrote Don Litman, a civil lawyer for Sandusky, to lawyers for the Sinisi family, Shawn Sinisi "unequivocally stated that he was not sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky."

So did Josh Sinisi, Shawn's older brother, who attended the Second Mile camps with his brother, and claimed that they stayed together overnight at Sandusky's house.

That's the story told in a trio of contemporaneous police reports from 2011 and 2012 emanating from the state attorney general's office that are marked "confidential." That's why Litman, who's defending Sandusky against a civil suit filed by the Sinisi family on March 12, 2021, has told the Sinisis, who are the featured guests on the Ganim podcast, that they are engaged in "publishing false and misleading information." So Sandusky's lawyer has called on the parents of Shawn Sinisi to cease and desist.

Litman, who referred a request for comment to Sandusky's criminal layers, has demanded that the Sinisi family take the podcast series off the internet "or we shall bring this to the attention of the Court and seek injunctive relief along with further consequences for such blatant misconduct."


Ronald Carnevali, a lawyer for the Sinisi family, did not respond to a request for comment.

But those contemporaneous police reports have a lot to say.

On May 27, 2011, Agent Anthony Sassano of the state attorney general's office interviewed Shawn Sinisi at his home.

In the Sandusky grand jury probe, Sassano was the lead investigator of a joint seven-member task force between the state attorney general's office and the state police that went out knocking on the doors of some 300 young men who had been participants in programs sponsored by The Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for wayward youth.

What the task force that worked under Sassano and then Deputy Attorney Jonelle Eshbach were looking for was victims of sex abuse, but they weren't very successful.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Sassano testified that the special task force had interviewed 250 men who were former members of the Second Mile charity, but they only found one man who claimed to be a victim of abuse.

According to a Penn Live story that was based on Ganim's "reporting" for her new podcast, "The Sinisis say that Shawn disclosed a small part of his abuse to detectives when Sandusky came under a grand jury investigation, but he was already mired in the underworld of drugs and addiction by the time the case went to trial. His mother said investigators told her it wasn’t worth pitting two brothers against each other."

The police reports, however, tell a different story.



When Sassano went to see Shawn Sinisi on May 27, 2011, the then 19-year-old told the agent that he and his older brother Josh had attended the Second Mile summer camps annually for one week between 2004 and 2007, when he would have been between approximately 12 and 16, until Shawn "lost interest in the programs as he became older."

The programs at the Second Mile had been recommended to Josh Sinisi, who had "mental problems" similar to Attention Deficit Disorder by Josh Sinisi's counselor, Shawn Sinisi told Sassano, according to the police report.

Shawn Sinisi, then 19 years old, told Sassano that he and his brother stayed overnight at Sandusky's home seven or eight times, and that the two brothers "always were together in these overnight stays and summer camp stays."

"Shawn indicated he did not know why Sandusky showed a special interest in him and/or his brother," Sassano wrote. "He indicated that Sandusky would tell him he loved him and occasionally gave him a kiss on the head. He indicated that he did not view these acts as sexual in nature."

On March 30, 2011, Ganim, then working for the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, published the first story that disclosed there was a secret grand jury of Sandusky under way, amid allegations that Sandusky was a serial sexual abuser of children.

"He [Shawn Sinisi] indicated he never felt uncomfortable around Sandusky and would tell me if anything inappropriate had occurred," Sassano wrote.

"He [Shawn Sinisi] elaborated that he [Sandusky] has a current legal charge of rape pending against him and if something was done by Sandusky, he would report it," Sassano wrote.

But Shawn Sinisi wasn't claiming to be a victim. Instead, he was a booster of Sandusky.

"Shawn indicated he believes Sandusky is a great role model as he helps people in need," Sassano wrote.



Four days after he interviewed Shawn Sinisi, on May 31, 2011, Agent Sassano returned to interview Josh Sinisi, then 23.

Josh Sinisi told Sassano that he began attending Second Mile events in 2001, when he was a 12 year-old seventh grader, and stayed in the program until 2005 or 2006, when he was 16 or 17.

Josh Sinisi said he developed a "closer relationship" with Sandusky, and stayed overnight with his brother at Sandusky's house about a dozen times. Josh Sinisi said he used to attend Sandusky family tailgate parties at Penn State football games, and then go to the football games.

Josh Sinisi said that Sandusky used to throw footballs to him, and that they played Polish soccer together, and lifted weights.

As the task force typically did, Agent Sassano of the state attorney general's office proceeded to ask a bunch of leading questions.

"I asked him [Josh Sinisi] if Sandusky ever touched him physically in any way that made him feel uncomfortable," Sassano wrote, and Josh Sinisi "indicated no."

"I asked if Sandusky ever tried to get him to take a shower with him at PSU, and if so, did he touch him and again he indicated no," Sassano wrote.

Josh "Sinisi indicated that if Sandusky had ever done touched him in a sexual manner, he would have let his mother know and he would not have tolerated it even at his younger age," Sassano wrote.

Not even the free publicity from Sara Ganim was beneficial for the state attorney general's investigation of Sandusky, when it came to Agent Sassano's interviews with the Sinisi brothers.

Josh "Sinisi indicated he heard of the allegations against Sandusky in the news and that he does not believe they are true," Sassano wrote. "He indicated that Sandusky is a very generous and most positive person who helps people [kids] with problems. He indicated to this day, he has occasional contact with Sandusky via phone and considers him a friend."

That's the story that Josh Sinisi told, but it wasn't the story that Sassano was hoping to hear.



On May 9, 2012, when the state attorney general's office was getting ready to prosecute Sandusky at trial, Sassano returned to visit Josh Sinisi again to see if he would tell a different story, as did so many of Sandusky's accusers after they had initially said they weren't abused.

But Josh Sinisi didn't change his story.

Josh Sinisi told Sassano that he first met Sassano at the Penn State swimming pool, where Sandusky was often "horsing around in the pool with a lot of the kids."

When he stayed over at Sandusky's house, Josh Sinisi told Sassano, he brought his girlfriend along, as well as his brother, Shawn.

"He [Josh Sinisi] aways felt very comfortable with Jerry Sandusky and also brought a lot of his cousins with him to go to games and hang out at the Sanduskys' house," Sassano wrote.

"He stated that after staying at Sandusky's house many, many times, he knows that Sandusky would have had ample opportunity to abuse him if he was so inclined to do so," Sassano wrote.

But, "He [Sandusky] never once tried anything out of line with Sinisi," Sassano wrote. Instead, Josh "Sinisi stated that Sandusky is kind of a grandfatherly, huggy type of guy and genuinely tries to encourage kids with his enthusiasm. His hugging and caring for the kids is never sexual at all."

Josh Sinisi told Sassano "that he does not believe that these allegations are true and feels that this might be some attempt by these kids to get money from Penn State and Jerry Sandusky."

Josh Sinisi added that "he has never heard anyone speak about Jerry Sandusky in a negative way" and that Sandusky "always had a tremendous impact on a lot of kids."

Josh Sinisi also told Sassano that "Sandusky was a positive influence in his life to say the least. Sandusky set Sinisi on his life course and Sinisi feels he would have never gotten into college and would never bein the position he is in today without Sandusky's help," Sassano wrote. "He [Josh Sinisi] said that Sandusky was extremely influential in his life."




When Sandusky retired as a football coach, in a Sept. 17, 2010 story published in the Altoona Mirror, Josh Sinisi described Sandusky in an email as "kind, loving, caring, generous, strong, positive, successful."

In the story dug up by blogger Ray Blehar, Josh Sinisi, who had attention deficit disorder as a child, told the newspaper that Sandusky "taught me to be strong and never let anything [or anyone] stand in my way between what I wanted."

"He's an amazing man," agreed Marianne Sinisi.

When the sex abuse scandal hit the media, the Sinisis didn't change their story, and they continued to publicly defend Sandusky.

On Nov. 6, 2011, after Ganim's bombshell on the leaked grand jury report, Marianne Sinisi was quoted on statecollege.com as saying about the charges against Sandusky, "I don't believe it. I think he is a good man, and they are railroading him.

In the story, disclosed on Twitter by reporter John Ziegler, Josh Sinisi added, "I don't think it is true at all . . . I just went to a Penn State game with him a few weeks ago . . . I think it is ridiculous. I don't believe the charges are true at all."

Josh Sinisi told statecollege.com that he spent a lot of time with Sandusky. "He had the opportunity to do things with me and my brother," he said, but it never happened.

A year after her son's death, in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feature story on Dec. 24, 2019, Marianne Sinisi discussed her tragic loss, as well as the work of a charity she founded to aid the families of drug addicts. But according to the story that was posted on Twitter by Ziegler, Marianne Sandusky never even mentioned Sandusky.

On the new podcast, however, Marianne Sinisi tells Sara Ganim an entirely different story.

According to the Penn Live story based on Ganim's reporting, "Years would pass before Shawn told his mother and a lawyer that he was sexually abused by Sandusky. Afraid of disappointing his family, who were fans of Sandusky’s mentorship for Josh, Shawn began coping by self-medicating, first with alcohol and marijuana, quickly escalating to hardcore drugs."

And now, according to Penn Live, Josh Sinisi has changed his story as well.

According to the Penn Live story, "Brother Josh, who was also in Sandusky’s orbit, said the convicted child molester used his good relationship with him to intimidate Shawn into being silent. It worked for many years. Shawn kept his abuse bottled up, instead turning to drugs to cope, starting at age 13."

Phil Lauer, a criminal defense lawyer who is representing Sandusky in his appeal of his conviction, "I was not aware of the Sinisi family ever coming forward in the previous ten years."



"In the summer of 2019, I got a call from a woman who identified herself as Marianne Sinisi," Ganim said. "She wanted to talk to me about her son Shawn — and what had happened just a year earlier, when Shawn was found unconscious on the floor of a McDonald’s bathroom in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Shawn died that night of an overdose. He was just 26 years old."

"Marianne sounded somewhat frantic on the phone that day as she described what had happened to her youngest child," Ganim said. "She reached out to me to share her story, because Shawn had also been a victim. A victim of a man who is now one of the most well known serial pedophiles, Jerry Sandusky."

"Jerry Sandusky’s conviction was punishment for what he had done, and it ensured that he could not harm any other children, but it couldn’t undo the abuse — or the consequences and myriad of ways it would manifest in his victims’ lives," Ganim said according to a transcript of the first episode of the podcast posted online.

"As someone who had followed the Sandusky story since the very beginning, I recognized immediately: that Shawn’s death marked a grim milestone — a fatality stemming from Jerry Sandusky’s abuse," Ganim said according to the transcript.

The Sinisi family is suing Penn State. The Penn Live story, based on Ganim's reporting, states, "Penn State had agreed to pay for Shawn to go to The Meadows, a treatment facility in Arizona with a sterling reputation . . ."

"What they [the Sinisi family] did know is that after just eight days in the rehab center, Shawn was told to leave. He was put on a plane to Pittsburgh, with no safe destination lined up for him."

"His family doesn’t know exactly what happened from there. He ended up at a McDonald’s and overdosed in the bathroom."

“Our poor Shawn,” his mother Marianne told Penn Live. “I felt like he wasn’t cared for at all ... not even leaving the planet."

In a Nov. 3rd press release, Meadowlark Media announced the new multi-episode podcast chronicling the Jerry Sandusky scandal that would be broadcast "on the 10th anniversary of his arrest."

'"The Mayor of Maple Avenue' is a multi-part investigative podcast with reporting by Sara Ganim," the press release states.

"Sinisi died in 2018 at the age of 26 from an opioid overdose. He is the only one of Sandusky’s victims known to have died since the former coach was convicted on 45 counts of sexual child abuse."

The press release says the podcast is a "joint project between the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Pulitzer Center for Local Reporting."

“Sara’s powerful reporting details how Shawn spent 14 years bouncing between jail, rehab facilities, and homelessness," the press release says. "The endless roadblocks the young man and his family faced, as they attempted to overcome addiction and trauma, clearly point to a national rehab system in drastic need of overhaul.”

"The Mayor of Maple Avenue will debut Thursday, Nov. 4 (the 10th anniversary of Sandusky’s arrest and indictment), available on your podcast platform of choice, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify."

To get a response to this story, I emailed or tweeted Ganim, Meadowlark Media, the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Pulitzer Center for Local Reporting, but all of these alleged champions of the First Amendment are stonewalling.

Not one of them respond to my requests for comment.



There are a few more problems with the story that Ganim and the Sinisis are peddling.

If Shawn Sinisi was an alleged victim of Sandusky's, why didn't he come forward any time after Sandusky was convicted on June 22, 2012 until Sept. 4, 2018, when Sinisi died?

That's what 41 men did and 36 of them got paid a total of $118 million, or an average of $3.3 million each. But when Penn State was taking in all those claims, investigating nothing and writing some big checks, Shawn Sinisi wasn't on the list of alleged victims.

Why not? Why would Shawn Sinisi and/or his family miss out on the gold rush?

Instead, the Sinisi family filed a lawsuit two years after Shawn's death in Philadelphia in 2020 but waited until March 12th of this year to notify the defendants in the case about the civil complaint in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

The complaint is filed against Sandusky, the Second Mile, and Jack Raykovitz, former president, CEO and executive director of the Second Mile, and his wife, Katherine, who was the charity's executive vice president. In that lawsuit, Penn State is not listed as a defendant.

In the 77-page complaint, the lawyer for the Sinisis reprises the entire now-discredited narrative of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, complete with the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy in the Penn State showers that was an invention of the fiction writers in the state attorney general's office, and the alleged cover up conducted by top Penn State officials, which was the invention of the authors of the Freeh Report.

On this blog, I have printed an 8,000 word summary of what really happened in the case, compiled from thousands of pages of court records, and hundreds of pages of confidential records that are still under seal.

It's a synopsis that thoroughly debunks the entire false narrative from start to finish. If you haven't read it previously, you might want to take a look.

The typical pattern with most of Sandusky's accusers was that they initially denied they'd been abused. And then they'd hire a lawyer, undergo scientifically-discredited recovered memory therapy, and then they'd say that the doors of their minds had been opened, and now they recalled all kinds of abuse that they had apparently forgotten about.

But nowhere in the 77-page complaint filed by the Sinisis does it mention any recovered memory therapy undergone by Shawn. While the complaint claims that Shawn Sinisi was alone when he was abused by Sandusky, the complaint never mentions Josh Sinisi, Shawn Sinisi's older brother, who, according to the three police reports was always with Shawn whenever they attended a Second Mile event, or stayed over at Sandusky's house.



The complaint does state that in the summer of 2000, Shawn Sinisi, then eight years old, attended a summer camp sponsored by the Second Mile that was held on the Penn State campus.

That's in stark contrast to Shawn Sinisi's interview with Agent Sassano, when he states that he began attending Second Mile events in 2004, when he was approximately 12 years old.

The complaint is also in stark contrast with older brother Josh Sinisi's interview with Agent Sassano, where he stated he began attending Second Mile events in 2001, when he was a 12-year-old seventh grader.

But the complaint states that back in 2000, when Shawn was eight, that Sandusky "began to groom Shawn Sinisi to become a victim of his sexual assaults."

"During that summer camp, Sandusky would, among other things, swim in the pool with Shawn Sinisi and grope his genitalia," the lawsuit claims. The following summer, in 2001,Sandusky continued to sexually assault Shawn Sinisi, including while in the showers of the Lasch Building."

"Over the next several years, Sandusky continued to groom Shawn Sinisi, spend excessive time with Shawn Sinisi, purchase gifts for Shawn Sinisi and his family, and sexually assault and abuse Shawn Sinisi," the complaint states.

"Sandusky continued to invite Shawn Sinisi to events hosted by Penn State and The Second Mile; invited Shawn Sinisi to attend various sporting events as his guest, including Penn State, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Philadelphia Eagles football games; invited Shawn Sinisi to attend football camps hosted by Penn State and The Second Mile on various Penn State campuses; invited Shawn to his home in State College, Pennsylvania, where Shawn was encouraged to spend the night on numerous occasions; and invited Shawn Sinisi to Penn State athletic facilities in order to exercise and spend time with Sandusky."

"During these activities, Sandusky sexually assaulted Shawn Sinisi in various manners," the complaint states.

"As a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse suffered by Shawn Sinisi at the hands of Sandusky, Shawn Sinisi began to utilize drugs and alcohol in order to manage and/or cope with the physical and emotional trauma, physical and mental pain, and other damages and injuries, as set forth above."

"Shawn Sinisi continued to utilize drugs and alcohol to manage and/or cope with the damages and/or injuries he suffered, as set forth above, until around or about September 4, 2018, when he overdosed on heroin and died," the complaint concludes.

"The death of Shawn Sinisi is a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Sandusky."

The Problems With Sara Ganim's Reporting

Ganim, who, at 24, won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on Sandusky, was the beneficiary of many leaks about the supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Sandusky, leaks that would forever poison Sandusky's reputation, and deprive him of his right to a fair trial.

Ganim reported on a prior 1998 investigation into another Sandusky shower incident that turned out to be unfounded. Somebody in the know had leaked to Ganim a police report from the prior 1998 case that had turned up no crime, a police report that was supposed to be expunged.

Who gave Ganim that police report? There's a short list of suspects, a few of whom were employed by the state Attorney General's office.

In a 79-page diary compiled by former FBI Agent Kathleen McChesney, who was an investigator for former FBI Director Louis Freeh during his civil investigation into an alleged cover up at Penn State, McChesney recorded that one of the first documents that Freeh's investigators sought was a "1998 investigation report [that] has been provided," regarding the investigation of that first shower incident, a police report that was supposed to have been expunged.

On Jan. 4, 2012, McChesney wrote that during a meeting with investigator Anthony Sassano and another official from the state attorney general's office, she learned that the "1998 police report" was "out of sequence and filed in administrative rather than criminal." And that the Penn State police chief and the original investigator from the 1998 incident were the "only ones who knew."

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify deputy Attorney General Frank Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

Scrheffler became convinced that there was a leak in the state attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky.

On March 12, 2012, the retired detective called Richard Sethman, one of Freeh's investigators.

What did Schreffler have to say? According to a confidential report from Sethman, the retired detective stated that "it has been clear to him from the beginning that there has been a leak of information in the attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky."

How did Schreffler know that?

"In March of 2011," the report says, "Sara Ganim, a reporter for the Patriot News in Harrisburg came to his residence and asked pointed questions about the 1998 Sandusky investigation," Sethman wrote after his conversation with the retired detective.

"Ganim advised Schreffler that she had a copy of the Pennsylvania State University Police report. She made specific reference to what Schreffler had written in the report. Schreffler asked Ganim how she got a copy of the report but Ganim would not reveal her source."

Besides publishing grand jury leaks that permanently destroyed Sandusky's chances for a fair trial, Ganim also functioned during the secret grand jury probe of Sandusky as an official courier for the A.G.'s office.

According to a brief filed by Sandusky's appeal lawyers, at a time when the grand jury probe was struggling to find victims, and in danger of expiring, Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave McCord the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, had a message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."

At Sandusky's trial, rather than have Ganim testify in court, the prosecutors from the state attorney general's office admitted in a legal stipulation that Ganim had acted as a messenger for the state attorney general's office by contacting McCord.

Another Bogus Ganim Scoop

In 2017, Ganim, then working for CNN, struck again with a highly prejudicial scoop that was the result of another leak.

Ganim claimed she had obtained a one-page police report about the 1998 shower incident that "bolsters evidence" that the late Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno, "knew years before Jerry Sandusky's arrest that his longtime assistant might be abusing children."

The one page Pennsylvania state police report from 2011, supposedly obtained from a source, Ganim wrote, is "described here for the first time." The report, which she never published, supposedly "lays out an account from whistleblower Mike McQueary," who was telling Paterno about the since-discredited story about the rape in the showers of a 10-year-old boy.

"Paterno allegedly told McQueary in 2001 that the claim against Sandusky 'was the second complaint of this nature he had received," according to the police report, which was written after Sandusky's arrest 10 years later," Ganim wrote.

"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."

As somebody who's read a lot of police reports, those are some pretty dramatic flourishes.

Here's the rest of the story, as reported by Ganim:

"Then he [Paterno] made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection."

The police report also noted, Ganim wrote, that Paterno allegedly told McQueary that Dottie Sandusky, Jerry's wife, had told Sue Paterno, Joe's wife, that "Jerry doesn't like girls."

Ganim's 2017 scoop was immediately denounced as false by both the Paterno family and Sandusky's wife.

"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."

"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."

"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry."

"The incident in question is the 1998 [shower] episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded," Dottie Sandusky wrote.

"I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."

To sum up, this month marks the tenth anniversary of Sara Ganim's report of the illegal grand jury leak of the grand jury presentment that contained the false allegation that Jerry Sandusky had been by seen a lone witness raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers. The leak to Ganim set off the entire media firestorm over the alleged sex abuse scandal at Penn State.

Now on the tenth anniversary of that sorry event, Sara Ganim has taken it upon herself to provide all of us with a fresh example of how, when it comes to Jerry Sandusky, her reporting can't be trusted.

 

[bourbon n blues]

You are the one who claims to have "secret files" that show how guilty everyone is. Why not open up the records? Make them public. Why not?

(answer: because that's not how the world works. No one gives up confidential info when they don't have to).

It's evidence weirdo, God you're pathetic.

 

[AvgUser]

It's OAG and state police evidence you potato.

Who’s the potato? You claimed there was hidden evidence.
I welcome it.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Who’s the potato? You claimed there was hidden evidence.
I welcome it.

I never claimed there was hidden evidence moron. I said there was evidence that wasn’t presented at trial . Because every little detail is presented in a trial , many things such as all of Jerry’s victims weren’t presented at trial .
There’s nothing hidden, they didn’t use it. Or it was disallowed by the judge as in the case of Baldwin’s testimony.
You’re arguing for Joe’s too innocence , nothing more . Joe wasn’t on trial , however there’s nothing thst would exonerate him reputation wise.

 

[AvgUser]

I never claimed there was hidden evidence moron. I said there was evidence that wasn’t presented at trial . Because every little detail is presented in a trial , many things such as all of Jerry’s victims weren’t presented at trial .
There’s nothing hidden, they didn’t use it. Or it was disallowed by the judge as in the case of Baldwin’s testimony.
You’re arguing for Joe’s too innocence , nothing more . Joe wasn’t on trial , however there’s nothing thst would exonerate him reputation wise.

Let me clarify as I interpreted your statement saying the “evidence” not presented would be damaging.

I welcome to see, view and weigh what it means. Please, bring it or stop alleging “you know stuff”. Thus far you’ve shown sh!t.

 

[GulfCoastLion]

The question relative to WHCANole and bourbon blues (the anonymous reprobate Paterno haters) is this: are they frustrated, long suffering Pitt fans, or BUTGers fans ? Inquisitive posters and long time lurkers are curious

 

[NoBareFeet]

Because every little detail is presented in a trial , many things such as all of Jerry’s victims weren’t presented at trial

This is true. They only used the best, most convincing victims. Like the one "known only to God", and the phantom one that a janitor whose janitor friend may or may not have seen. When you have iron clad victims like that, no need to bring them all.

 

[WHCANole]

Well she praised Spanier during his federal security clearance and accused him to the OAG.

Before she learned that CSS were playing her and lying to her about what they knew.

So she lied about one of those.

No she didn't. But this shows your simplemindedness about this case.

 

[WHCANole]

Not exactly what he said, but as I've said before with Ziegler I tend to focus more on the original data (interviews and documents) that he presents than I do with his theories.

It is what he said and I guess he is like your crazy uncle in the attic. You have wholeheartedly adopted his theories so I'm thinking you might want to go join him in the attic?

Conspiracy Charlatan

 

[WHCANole]

I have. Just admit it.

Nope

You have a very poor understand of the facts and/or how to interpret them.

Right back at you Super Chief

This program sounds like it is more of a graduate program than a job (that would also explain the low income).

Spencer Education Fellowship | Columbia Journalism School

journalism.columbia.edu

They audit classes and do research. That sounds like a program of study, not a job. So I believe it is not inaccurate to say that she is unemployed. If you want to consider a fellowship a job (I'm not sure that in the journalism field I would), she is at a minimum under employed in that she is a 35 year old former Pulitzer Prize winner.

You make my point and then you moved the goalposts I see. This is why I would never bet with you. A liar, won't admit you're wrong and crazy to boot.

You'd lose so whether or not I would pay up is immaterial. But I've offered to have a third party mediate any bet we'd make.

See above

Whether or not they *can* be is not relevant here. This form was downloaded from my EoPF account. That's all you need to know.

No it IS relevant because it shows that you could easily fake it.

Wut? So when I ate lunch today that was a conspiracy theory? When I look both ways before crossing the street, that a conspiracy? You are ridiculous. Everyone acting independently in their own best interest is the OPPOSITE of a conspiracy.

I realize you are rather dim but try to read a little better and quit smoking dope. What I said was" "People acting corruptly in their best interests." Was your eating lunch corrupt? Was crossing the street? I like making you look like a fool that you are LOLOL.

In your insane narrative the cabal was the OAG (who you say are ALL corrupt LOL), the BOT, and the NCAA telling Freeh(also part of the cabal) what to write. then you throw in the media as well. That is coordination and a conspiracy theory you idiot.

If it weren't true it might be crazy only that it would be an extremely weird thing to lie about. But it is true, so not relevant.

It is true and you are crazy.

I don't give the reporter any credit for publishing an illegal leak. They should not win any awards.

Who cares what you think. The Pulitzer doesn't and neither does anyone else.

I'm sure they will take your phone call. LOLOLOLOL.

Before they'd take yours LOL

So? I personalized my photo for you. Not too many other Nole's on the internet asking to see Antarctic service medals I wouldn't think...

Easy to do by pointing and clicking on Amazon or eBay and I think the medal is about $20?

On her best day, she isn't even in the ballpark with me intellectually or morally.

You demonstrate with your insane rantings on here that you are nothing more than a fake valor stealing psychopath who hates children and people in general and worships a school and it's icon. That is why you will never get any type of majority to believe your crap narrative and Sarah Ganim will be a part of journalistic history. You will be nothing.

 

[WHCANole]

You haven't. Independently verifiable (without using PII) is very tricky. You must be specific.

I have been you are afraid to do it.

Nothing fake about me, ostrich ****er.

Like everything except I accept your claim that you are immature.

You'd be informing me about me, so not sure what you'd be hoping to accomplish. No, I mean you'd accuse me of being racist and a pedophile (both completely untrue). So no chance you will ever know my name.

Coward

Did you click on the link? Definitely not porn.

I know you are obsessed with sex so I won't look at the sex sites you link.

 

[WHCANole]

I'm not hiding behind anything any more than anyone else here. Very few people (including you and Bourbon) use their real name. If you want to give us your real names, I'll reciprocate.

You're a liar and would never reveal it as it would expose you as a fraud.

And I've never claimed to be heroic. Just an above average scientist.

You are neither. Liar and fake.

 

[bourbon n blues]

I have been you are afraid to do it.

Like everything except I accept your claim that you are immature.

Coward

I know you are obsessed with sex so I won't look at the sex sites you link.

I don't think they grasp this is going nowhere but here. Nothing will change except a very small cottage industry appealing to weirdos who can't let it go.

 

[WHCANole]

Just because you can find some other article from some fringe website that says it doesn't trump Columbia Law review and peer reviewed legal publications.

BS Take a read . It'll help you grow in this.

You obviously don't follow this story. There are lots of people who have said this in a variety of forums. Even you bff Ziegler is in this camp.

Again who? Links cites?

It took so long to put the case together because he is innocent. They had to carefully construct their lies before they had a chance to win in court.

Conspiracy Theory

Ask Eschbach? Do you have her contact info? I'm guessing she won't respond.

You asked the question. Google is your friend.

Brave, real and 100% truth. Meanwhile, you **** sick ostriches.

Coward, liar and fake. Obsessed with bestiality are you.

You are asking me for my name. If you aren't asking me for my name, please tell me what information you would consider to be "independently verifiable." If it isn't PII, I will provide it no problem.

I have explained what that term means but since you are not a scientist but living in mommies basement it escapes you.

Then, I'll keep beating you down and making you look dumb. It's quite amusing.

I'll keep making you dance and fueling your rage although I am concerned you might go postal and take out some others...but nah, youa re too much of a coward to do that.

Agreed, but nothing has been faked. Most normal people would accept that someone is who they say they are when they have zero reason to lie about it.

But you are not normal and are rather crazy so the fakery and lies while hiding behind an anonymous handle.

It's not a "claim"; it's a common statement. It's like if I say "I'm a male US Citizen". That's not a "claim." A "claim" would be "I can run faster than you" or "I am better at basketball than you are."

No, it's a claim.

Nice that you missed my joke completely.

It was stupid

Maybe you don't know about this case as you think you do.

More than you it seems

For the record, there is no God.

Can you prove that? LOL

You conflate "proving a negative" (I cannot disprove beyond any doubt that there is no God)

See above Gomer you refute yourself in the same post LOLOLOL

with "disproving a falsity." If you say that you are seven feet tall, we can measure and prove that you are not seven feet tall. That is disproving a statement. Which is what you could do in this instant, if I am lying. But I am 100% who I claim to be.

Says you, which is a lie.

It was brought up originally to refute an insult about my level of education.

That's all. You went batshit about it for some reason.

No you brought it up to try and lend cred (in your mind) to your insane arguments. I doubted it because you post like a cretin and then YOU went and still are Batshit trying to get me to admit to your fake persona which I will not do.

Maybe you always wanted to be a scientist and mommy wouldn't buy you a graphing calculator. Or maybe you are too dumb to take college level science classes.

Projecting here you are

You hate science for some reason.

I hate stolen valor fakes

It's not an appearance. It's usually the case.

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 Now, craziest man in the room I would believe!

There obviously is.

Nope just you

Unless you are playing dumb on this site, I am so much smarter than you it isn't even funny.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It isn't and I am neither of those things.

It is and you are

Never had, never would.

Yep

100% true. Just accept it. Or ask me for that singular magic piece of "verifiable" information that will shut you up. Bring it.

Liar. You know what to give but you won't.

Nope, just innocent men. Huzzah for me!

Guilty despicable men. Again, shame on you and your hating ilk!

 

[WHCANole]

He went to jail (unjustly) for EWOC, not perjury.

He went to jail because he lied about what he knew (said a juror and his email) and it endangered the welfare of a child.

You can't even keep your own lies straight.

I am correct. BTW Have you been to jail too?

 

[WHCANole]

I don't think they grasp this is going nowhere but here. Nothing will change except a very small cottage industry appealing to weirdos who can't let it go.

I like to beat down people like @AvgUser and @PSU2UNC in case anyone who doesn't know the case comes across this site and thinks these fools have any evidence. It really makes PSU look bad to have these fools posting the crap they post but as long as there is a voice to refute their craziness I agree with you they will remain confined to the mentally ill as an audience.

 

[bourbon n blues]

I like to beat down people like @AvgUser and @PSU2UNC in case anyone who doesn't know the case comes across this site and thinks these fools have any evidence. It really makes PSU look bad to have these fools posting the crap they post but as long as there is a voice to refute their craziness I agree with you they will remain confined to the mentally ill as an audience.

You're correct, they just make stuff up or take something out of context and run with it to their preferred conclusion.

 

[WHCANole]

If he's a scientist, he sure is dumb. The materials that show what actually happened is called evidence. These clowns think every shred of evidence is publicly released during the trial. Baldwin's testimony was disallowed for example. What did she have to say? Put her on a panel with the three jail birds and let's hash this out.
Like that will happen lol.

He is no such scientist. This is just his made up shyte to make his nutty posts have some cred. He is some wannbe PSU loser living in mommies basement posting all over the internet while playing League of Legends wearing blackface as "drbigbeef". He's nuts but he's catering to nuts.

 

[jerot]

Ah yes, that must be it.

All those emails in which seniors write openly about their concern about not going to the authorities......their concern about Jerry's behavior.......about keeping Paterno updated on the latest......about dealing with Sandusky the "humane" way rather than going to the cops.......about Curley's talk with Joe and subsequent decision NOT to go to child welfare services and instead deal with Jerry directly.......about their admission that Jerry needs help.......about their clear-as-day knowledge of Jerry's 1998 incident.......

All just a misunderstanding and a misreading I guess. Got it.

Misunderstanding is all most can do...their hobby.


Certain stuff is interesting -

It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Dranov and others, however, that McQueary did not witness sodomy that night in February 2001. He thought something sexual was happening, but as he emphasized later, the entire episode lasted 30 to 45 seconds, he heard the sounds for only a few seconds, and his glance in the mirror was even quicker.
Ten years after the event, his memory had shifted and amplified, after the police told him that they had other Sandusky victims. Under that influence, his memory made the episode much more sexually graphic.
As I have written previously, all memory is reconstructive and is subject to distortion. That is particularly true when many years have intervened, and when current attitudes influence recall of those distant events. It is worthwhile quoting here from psychologist Daniel Reisberg’s 2014 book, The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.
“Connections between a specific memory and other, more generic knowledge can allow the other knowledge to intrude into our recollection,” Reiserberg notes. “Thus, a witness might remember the robber threatening violence merely because threats are part of the witness’s cognitive ‘schema’ for how robberies typically unfold.”
That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.
“As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”
In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”
On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.
“I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”
But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.
In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. “Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”
Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.
McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.
McQueary had painted himself into a difficult corner. If he had really seen something so horrendous, why hadn’t he rushed into the shower to stop it? Why hadn’t he gone to the police? Why hadn’t he followed up with Paterno or other Penn State administrators to make sure something was being done? Why had he continued to act friendly towards Sandusky, even taking part in golfing events with him?
When angry people began to ask these questions, that first week in November 2011, McQueary emailed a friend. "I did stop it not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” he wrote. He now said that he had in essence contacted the police about the incident by alerting Joe Paterno, which led to Gary Schultz talking to him about it, and Schultz was the administrator the campus police reported to.
“No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
Subsequently, McQueary changed his story somewhat. He now recalled that he had loudly slammed his locker door, which made Sandusky stop the abuse, and that he had taken yet a third look in the shower to make sure they had remained apart.
At the trial, he said that he had “glanced” in the mirror for “one or two seconds,” then lengthened his estimate to “three or four seconds, five seconds maybe.” During that brief glance, he now said that he had time to see Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall, and that he saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement” of his midsection.
But neither the newly created sodomy scene nor the slammed locker would save McQueary’s career.

The Elusive Allan Myers [From Chapter 13]
By the time of the trial, eight accusers had been “developed,” as Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach put it. But Allan Myers, the boy in the shower in the McQueary incident, had been so public and vehement in his previous defense of Sandusky that the prosecution did not dare call him to testify.
When police inspector Joseph Leiter first interviewed him on September 20, 2011, Myers had emphatically denied that Sandusky had abused him or made him uncomfortable in any way.
After the Grand Jury Presentment was published on November 5, 2011, with its allegations that Mike McQueary had witnessed sodomy in a locker room shower, Myers realized that he was “Victim 2,” the boy in the shower that night, but that the sounds McQueary heard were just snapping towels or slap boxing. Myers then gave a detailed statement to Joseph Amendola’s investigator, Curtis Everhart, denying that Sandusky had ever abused him.
But within two weeks, Myers had become a client of Andrew Shubin. For months, Shubin refused to let the police interview Myers without Shubin being present, and he apparently hid Myers in a remote Pennsylvania hunting cabin to keep them from finding him.
After a February 10, 2012, hearing, Shubin verbally assaulted Anthony Sassano, an agent for the attorney general's office, outside the courthouse, cursing him roundly. “He was very vulgar, critical of me,” Sassano recalled. “Let’s call it unprofessional [language], for an attorney.”
Shubin was angry because the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t interview Myers, who, he claimed, had stayed at Sandusky’s house “over 100 times” where he had been subjected to “both oral and anal sex.” But the police still refused to allow Shubin to be present during any interview.
Soon afterwards, Shubin relented, allowing a postal inspector named Michael Corricelli to talk to Allan Myers alone on February 28, 2012. But during the three-hour interview, Myers never said Sandusky had abused him. On March 8, Corricelli tried again, but Myers again failed to provide any stories of molestation. On March 16, Corricelli brought Myers to the police barracks for a third interview in which Anthony Sassano took part. Asked about three out-of-state trips, Myers denied any sexual contact and said that Sandusky had only tucked him into bed.
“He did not recall the first time he was abused by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his notes, nor did Myers recall how many times he was abused. “He indicated it is hard to talk about the Sandusky sexual abuse because Sandusky was like a father to him.” Finally, Myers said that on a trip to Erie, Pennsylvania, Sandusky put his hand inside his pants and touched his penis. Sassano tried valiantly to get more out of him, asking whether Sandusky had tried to put Myers’ hand on his own penis or whether that had been oral sex. No.
Still, Myers now estimated that there had been ten sexual abuse events and that the last one was in the shower incident that McQeary overheard. “I attempted to have Myers elaborate on the sexual contact he had with Sandusky, but he refused by saying he wasn’t ready to talk about the specifics,” Sassano wrote. Myers said that he had not given anyone, including his attorneys, such details. “This is in contrast to what Shubin told me,” Sassano noted.
On April 3, 2012, Corricelli and Sassano were schedule to meet yet again with the reluctant Allan Myers, but he didn’t show up, saying that he was “too upset” by a friend’s death.
“Corricelli indicated that Attorney Shubin advised him that Myers had related to him incidents of oral, anal, and digital penetration by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his report. “Shubin showed Corricelli a three page document purported to be Myers’ recollection of his sexual contact with Sandusky. Corricelli examined the document and indicated to me that he suspected the document was written by Attorney Shubin. I advised that I did not want a copy of a document that was suspected to be written by Attorney Shubin.” Sassano concluded: “At this time, I don’t anticipate further investigation concerning Allan Myers.”
That is how things stood as the Sandusky trial was about to begin. Karl Rominger wanted to call Myers to testify as a defense witness, but Amendola refused. “I was told that there was a détente and an understanding that both sides would simply not identify Victim Number 2,” Rominger later recalled. The prosecution didn’t want such a weak witness who had given a strong exculpatory statement to Curtis Everhart. Amendola didn’t want a defense witness who was now claiming to be an abuse victim. “So they decided to punt, to use an analogy,” Rominger concluded.

Mike McQueary then took the stand to tell his latest version of the shower incident with “Victim 2” (i.e., the unnamed Allan Myers), where he heard “showers running and smacking sounds, very much skin-on-skin smacking sounds.” (Later in his testimony, he said he heard only two or three slapping sounds that lasted two or three seconds.) He had re-framed and re-examined his memory of the event “many, many, many times,” he said, and he was now certain that he had looked into the shower three separate times, for one or two secondseach, and that he saw “Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against the shower. The showers are running and, and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy’s hands are up on the wall.” He saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement.” After he slammed his locker, McQueary said, they separated and faced him. Surprisingly, he said that Sandusky did not have an erection. When Amendola failed to object, Judge Cleland inserted himself, obviously fearful of future appeal or post-conviction relief issues. “Wait, wait, wait, just a second,” he warned McGettigan. “I think you have to be very careful for you not to lead this witness.”A few minutes later, the judge asked both lawyers to approach the bench. “I don’t know why you’re not getting objections to this grossly leading [questioning],” he told McGettigan, who said, “I’m just trying to get through it fast.”McQueary recounted how he had met with Joe Paterno.“I made sure he knew it was sexual and that it was wrong, [but] I did not go into gross detail.” Later, he said, he met with Tim Curley, the Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a university vice president. In an email quoted during his testimony, McQueary had written, “I had discussions with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police.” He now explained that by this he meant just one person, since Schultz oversaw the university police department. With only an hour’s warning, Joe Amendola asked Karl Rominger to conduct the cross-examination of McQueary and handed him the file. Rominger did the best he could, asking McQueary why in 2010 he had told the police that he’d looked into the showers twice but had now added a third viewing, and he questioned him about his misremembering that the shower incident occurred in 2002 rather than 2001. Rominger also noted that McQueary had told the grand jury, “I was nervous and flustered, so I just didn’t do anything to stop it.” Now he was saying that he slammed the locker, which allegedly ended the incident. Without meaning to, McQueary indirectly helped Sandusky’s case by explaining the demanding work schedule of a Penn State football coach, typically reporting to work Sunday through Tuesday at 7 a.m. and working until 10 p.m. or later. Then, Wednesday through Friday, it was 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. If Sandusky kept the same hours, it was difficult to see when he would have managed to molest all those boys, at least during preseason training and football season.


Finally, McQueary revealed that he had filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State for having removed him from his football coaching job in the midst of the Sandusky scandal. “I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong to lose that job," he said.


In his brief appearance for the defense, physician Jonathan Dranov recalled the February night in 2001 that his friend and employee, John McQueary, had called to ask him around 9 p.m. to come over, because his son Mike was upset by something that had happened in a Penn State locker room.


When he came in, Mike was sitting on the couch, “visibly shaken and upset.” The younger McQueary said he had gone to the locker room to put away some new sneakers and “he heard what he described as sexual sounds.”
Dranov asked him what he meant. “Well, sexual sounds, you know what they are,” McQueary said. “No, Mike, you know, what do you mean?” But he didn’t explain. “He just seemed to get a little bit more upset. So I kind of left that.”
McQueary told him that he looked toward the shower “and a young boy looked around. He made eye contact with the boy.” Dranov asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened, and McQueary said he did not. Then, as Dranov recalled, McQueary said that “an arm reached out and pulled the boy back.”



Was that all he saw? No, McQueary said “something about going back to his locker, and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out, and it was Jerry Sandusky.” Dranov asked McQueary three times if he had actually witnessed a sexual act. “I kept saying, ‘What did you see?’ and each time he [Mike] would come back to the sounds. I kept saying, ‘But what did you see?’ “And it just seemed to make him more upset, so I back off that.”

 

[GulfCoastLion]

All the holier than though posters claiming Joe, Curley, whoever should have gone to the police (why didn’t the weak, cowardly McQuerey go, since he was perhaps the only eye witness to seeing JS commit child rape ?), should know you can’t take the law into your own hands, unless you witnessed it yourself, or have 100% certainty such an allegation was true. Once again, Paterno was perhaps the only person who did everything right, or properly handled such an allegation.

Pedophilia is one of the hardest acts to detect, especially from a classic pedophile that Sandusky appears to have been. True experts who study the attributes of a classic pedophile know how these pedophiles present themselves as good, caring people who surround themselves with young children in some charitable, compassionate, mentor ship type of forum, and often become the last person anyone would suspect of such evil motives. Why do you think Sandusky was able to escape detection and perform his alleged pedophilia acts as long as he did ? The Second mile was the perfect organization for him to hide his monstrous activities for years. Heck, his wife apparently never suspected it and may still believe his innocence today ? The entire State College and surrounding Centre County community is guilty of supporting, abetting and not suspecting anything relative to Sandusky for years.

But of course the all knowing, omniscient Joe Paterno should have known better and taken the law into his own hands and gone to the police relative Jerry Sandusky being a pedophile. Just stop with the nonsense.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's evidence weirdo, God you're pathetic.

So what, you ninny? That doesn't prevent it from being released if you want full transparency.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Before she learned that CSS were playing her and lying to her about what they knew.

No she didn't. But this shows your simplemindedness about this case.

Wrong. Your timelines are all wrong.

Baldwin is a liar who was sanctioned for violating the most sacred of attorney ethics (client privilege).