FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

[Obliviax]

Keep in mind, McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

During the defamation suit McQueary filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."

There's another angle to the prosecutorial misconduct story line -- this email exchange between McQueary and Eshbach that was reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2 in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Blehar then cites four other witnesses in the case who also testified that McQueary never used sexual terms in describing what he had allegedly seen in the shower.

"Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. [John] Dranov, [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State VP Gary] Schutz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw," Blehar wrote.

In his second email to Eshbach, McQueary stated, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out the night before . . ."

In the email, McQueary doesn't say who the he was who was out the night before. In his blog post, Blehar takes the he as a reference to McQueary's father.

"Wait, what?" Blehar writes. "Paterno was in State College on Friday night. If this statement is true, then Mike did NOT meet with his father (and Dr. Dranov) immediately after the incident(because John Sr. was 'out of town.')"

"Another fabrication?" writes Blehar. "And the AG knew it."

In handwritten notes written in 2010, McQueary doesn't mention any meeting with his father and Dr. Dranov. Instead, he writes that he "drove to my parents' house" and "spoke with my father about the incident and received advice."

He also reiterates, "to be clear: from the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe one minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered."

A hazy one-minute memory that McQueary himself admitted he had no idea "whatever it was" he had actually witnessed.

But it was a hazy, one-minute memory that the AG's office wrote an entire grand jury presentment around. How weak is that?

It was flimsy evidence like this that led Special Agent Snedden to conclude that McQueary was not a credible witness back in 2012 when Snedden was investigating whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have his high-level security clearance with the federal government renewed. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no sex crime to cover up.

Because McQueary gave five different accounts over the years of what he supposedly witnessed during that one minute in the Penn State showers.

"I'd love to see McQueary's cell phone records, absent whatever dick pics he was sending out that day," Snedden cracked, referring to the day McQueary witnessed the shower incident, and then called his father to figure out what to do.

"Did he even call his dad?" Snedden wondered.

Snedden renewed his call for an independent investigation of the entire Penn State scandal, and the attorney general's role in manipulating evidence in the case.

"Anybody who cares about justice needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor in this case," Snedden said.

John Ziegler, a journalist who has covered the Penn State scandal since day one, agreed.

"This seems like blatant OAG misconduct and an indication that they were acutely aware their case had major problems," Ziegler wrote in an email. "Eshbach's response is stunning in that it admits errors in grand jury presentment and tells Mike to shut up about it."

Ziegler said the possibility that Mike McQueary never met with his father and Dr. Dranov, his father's boss, in an emergency meeting, if true, was big news.

"This is HUGE for several reasons," Ziegler wrote. The meeting, which supposedly occurred on the night McQueary witnessed the shower incident was the "ONLY piece of evidence that has EVER been consistent with Mike witnessing something horrible/dramatic" in the Penn State showers. And that's why "Dranov was brought in to meet with him [Mike McQueary] late on a Friday night in February," Ziegler said.

The AG's office, Ziegler speculated, "is desperate for evidence that Mike did something dramatic in reaction to" witnessing the shower incident.

And if the he McQueary was referring to in the email to Eshbach wasn't his father but was really Joe Paterno, Ziegler said, then that's another problem with the official Penn State story line. Because according to his family, Joe Paterno was in town that night and presumably available for an emergency meeting with a distraught assistant who had just witnessed a horrible sex crime in the shower.

If he really did see an anal rape ongoing in the shower, however, does the McQueary story, in any of its versions, make any sense?

McQueary didn't rush into the shower and try to save a helpless, 10-year-old boy.

He didn't call the police.

Like Elvis, he just left the building.

Great post. And the next morning was too late. At that point, evidence and the child’s identity were lost rendering the incident to a he said, he said event and MM said he was uncertain of what he saw. Absent any other evidence means little could have been done other than report him to TSM

 

[bourbon n blues]

none of that means jack squat. "grooming" is not illegal. Simply not actionable. I don't care if jesus said something, until it breaks a law it means zero. And that isn't Penn State, it was the govt prosecutors. To make matters more difficult, a lot of this data is to be kept secret by law. Worse yet, much of it is destroyed by law because even the hint of it getting out could ruin somebody's life.

Point is, these accusations are not to be taken lightly. And, in that regard, are very difficult to track and operationalize. This gives human trafficers a lot of room to operate. This means Jerry. It also means people like Epstein, Cosby, Pulanski, Priests and school teachers.

Clemente said that JS was one of the most difficult cases because of who jerry was, the charity, and the rural nature of Central PA. I believe him.

I'll believe someone in the case that has worked a careers worth of these than a paid narrative report .

 

[bourbon n blues]

Keep in mind, McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

During the defamation suit McQueary filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."

There's another angle to the prosecutorial misconduct story line -- this email exchange between McQueary and Eshbach that was reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2 in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Blehar then cites four other witnesses in the case who also testified that McQueary never used sexual terms in describing what he had allegedly seen in the shower.

"Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. [John] Dranov, [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State VP Gary] Schutz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw," Blehar wrote.

In his second email to Eshbach, McQueary stated, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out the night before . . ."

In the email, McQueary doesn't say who the he was who was out the night before. In his blog post, Blehar takes the he as a reference to McQueary's father.

"Wait, what?" Blehar writes. "Paterno was in State College on Friday night. If this statement is true, then Mike did NOT meet with his father (and Dr. Dranov) immediately after the incident(because John Sr. was 'out of town.')"

"Another fabrication?" writes Blehar. "And the AG knew it."

In handwritten notes written in 2010, McQueary doesn't mention any meeting with his father and Dr. Dranov. Instead, he writes that he "drove to my parents' house" and "spoke with my father about the incident and received advice."

He also reiterates, "to be clear: from the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe one minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered."

A hazy one-minute memory that McQueary himself admitted he had no idea "whatever it was" he had actually witnessed.

But it was a hazy, one-minute memory that the AG's office wrote an entire grand jury presentment around. How weak is that?

It was flimsy evidence like this that led Special Agent Snedden to conclude that McQueary was not a credible witness back in 2012 when Snedden was investigating whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have his high-level security clearance with the federal government renewed. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no sex crime to cover up.

Because McQueary gave five different accounts over the years of what he supposedly witnessed during that one minute in the Penn State showers.

"I'd love to see McQueary's cell phone records, absent whatever dick pics he was sending out that day," Snedden cracked, referring to the day McQueary witnessed the shower incident, and then called his father to figure out what to do.

"Did he even call his dad?" Snedden wondered.

Snedden renewed his call for an independent investigation of the entire Penn State scandal, and the attorney general's role in manipulating evidence in the case.

"Anybody who cares about justice needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor in this case," Snedden said.

John Ziegler, a journalist who has covered the Penn State scandal since day one, agreed.

"This seems like blatant OAG misconduct and an indication that they were acutely aware their case had major problems," Ziegler wrote in an email. "Eshbach's response is stunning in that it admits errors in grand jury presentment and tells Mike to shut up about it."

Ziegler said the possibility that Mike McQueary never met with his father and Dr. Dranov, his father's boss, in an emergency meeting, if true, was big news.

"This is HUGE for several reasons," Ziegler wrote. The meeting, which supposedly occurred on the night McQueary witnessed the shower incident was the "ONLY piece of evidence that has EVER been consistent with Mike witnessing something horrible/dramatic" in the Penn State showers. And that's why "Dranov was brought in to meet with him [Mike McQueary] late on a Friday night in February," Ziegler said.

The AG's office, Ziegler speculated, "is desperate for evidence that Mike did something dramatic in reaction to" witnessing the shower incident.

And if the he McQueary was referring to in the email to Eshbach wasn't his father but was really Joe Paterno, Ziegler said, then that's another problem with the official Penn State story line. Because according to his family, Joe Paterno was in town that night and presumably available for an emergency meeting with a distraught assistant who had just witnessed a horrible sex crime in the shower.

If he really did see an anal rape ongoing in the shower, however, does the McQueary story, in any of its versions, make any sense?

McQueary didn't rush into the shower and try to save a helpless, 10-year-old boy.

He didn't call the police.

Like Elvis, he just left the building.

What makes sense his him testifying three times and being believed by the juries each time.

 

[bourbon n blues]

You want the truth, allow Baldwin's testimony to be released publicly . Allow all the AG and PSP materials to me publicly released .
That's not going to happen because those actually in the mix of this don't want it. Those in LE don't care because they have other work to do.
It's all over and will not change, except it might get worse down the road with a tell all book by someone involved with the case.

 

[Obliviax]

What makes sense his him testifying three times and being believed by the juries each time.

Right. But in light of 20 other edge cases that in aggregate added up to believability

 

[PSU2UNC]

You want the truth, allow Baldwin's testimony to be released publicly .

Baldwin lied but I'd like it if her testimony came out so she can be completely discredited.

Allow all the AG and PSP materials to me publicly released .

I would love that too. More data is always better.

That's not going to happen because those actually in the mix of this don't want it. Those in LE don't care because they have other work to do.

LE doesn't want it released because it makes them look bad.

It's all over and will not change, except it might get worse down the road with a tell all book by someone involved with the case.

The Spanier book coming out his year will certainly make LE (and Freeh) look bad. If there were books to be written that supported your version of the story, I"m pretty confident Ganim would have written one. It's mind boggling that a Pulitzer prize winning journalist didn't even TRY to parlay that success into a book. Unheard of.

 

[WHCANole]

It doesn't make it less true. The unjustified sanctions that PSU imposed upon themselves related to Sandusky were NOT NCAA infractions. PSU broke no NCAA rules in that case.

Yeah they did.

 

[WHCANole]

Some highlights for those who haven't listened yet (I recommend you do):

6 min When ESPN approached Spanier for an interview they told him they thought the current media story was wrong and they wanted to set the record straight.

You have proof of this or just Spanier's word?

8 min Spanier said the BOT had distanced itself from the Freeh report.

Has the BOT officially repudiated it?

9 min Spanier did 2 hours of interviews with ESPN and was on camera for less than a minute. They ignored all of the facts he gave them (he answered over 100 questions with factual information; they ignored all of it)

18 min Paterno always came to Spanier’s office; even though Spanier offered to come to Lasch; JVP was deferential to the University President. They occasionally met at each other’s houses on weekends (Spanier liked to go to Joe’s house because of Sue’s cookies).

Except when Spanier wanted Joe to retire and Joe threw him out of his house.

22 min Some interesting context about what Spanier did for the federal government that required a security clearance (I didn’t previously realize exactly what that was)

27 min Spanier has multiple sources who said that Corbett promised that if he was elected governor he would remove Spanier as University President.

Proof of that? Affidavits? Interviews? Or just gossip?

40 min Initial reports to C/S/S were very vague. They thought they were going above what was needed by talking to Sandusky and to TSM. That is the opposite of a coverup.

Why would did Spanky feel they would be vulnerable for not reporting horseplay to DPW?

44 min Spanier offered to go back to the grand jury to clear up anything they had questions on. They declined. The GJ that indicted Spanier was NOT the GJ that Spanier testified before. It was solely based on Baldwin’s testimony (and we know that Baldwin was lying).

How do you know she was lying? Proof?

46 min They (PA OAG?) sent investigators to Chicago to interview Spanier’s family to verify that Spanier was abused as a child (he was, which obviously doesn’t match up with their story). The trauma the investigators grilling the family put Spanier’s elderly mother in the hospital and she subsequently died.

The OAG killed Spanier's mother? 🤣

49 min Interesting comparison between being head of PSU and head of FBI (similar sized organizations) with regards to Freeh surely didn’t know everything going on at the FBI but expected Spanier to know everything going on at PSU.

But Spanier got very involved in the Sandusky affair. Had he maintained more distance he might not have ended up like this: Jail Bird

52 min Dick Andersen gave some interesting insight from how the interviews with Freeh investigators went including threatening administrative assistants in Lasch (reducing several women to tears).

Gossip?

Also, Spanier has a memoir coming out this summer (not just about the scandal, but will be inclusive of that). Should be an interesting read.

Prolly filled with lies about how he didn't know but then said they could be vulnerable for not reporting.

 

[jerot]

Baldwin lied but I'd like it if her testimony came out so she can be completely discredited.

I would love that too. More data is always better.

LE doesn't want it released because it makes them look bad.

The Spanier book coming out his year will certainly make LE (and Freeh) look bad. If there were books to be written that supported your version of the story, I"m pretty confident Ganim would have written one. It's mind boggling that a Pulitzer prize winning journalist didn't even TRY to parlay that success into a book. Unheard of.

Mindboggling -


Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.
That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.
In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.
"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."
That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.
"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."
As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.
The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.
As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."
"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."
"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.
"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.
As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yeah they did.

You and I have discussed this before and as much as you want it to be true that PSU had major infractions, this is not true. I know you will never admit you are wrong (because you are a dishonest person) but for the benefit of others you maybe aren't familiar with your lies:

Please show me where in that press release that you linked it mentions major infractions (hint: it does not).

More important please show me in the OFFICIAL NCAA INFRACTIONS DATABASE where it shows that PSU has ever been found guilty of a major sanction.

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

Feel free to waste the rest of your weekend of those tasks.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You have proof of this or just Spanier's word?

Spanier's word as well as the word of others that ESPN said this. That's more corroboration than most things in this case but it is also congruent with why he would agree to the interview. I don't believe the ESPN producers believed this; I think they lied to get an interview.

Has the BOT officially repudiated it?

Please see the A9 report as well as Barron's comments here:

President Barron "Not A Fan" of the Freeh Report

President Eric Barron made perhaps his most definitive statement on the Freeh report to date in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press today, saying that he is "not a fan of the report."

onwardstate.com

Proof of that? Affidavits? Interviews? Or just gossip?

Multiple reports from multiple people. Again, that's more corroboration than almost everything else in this case.

Why would did Spanky feel they would be vulnerable for not reporting horseplay to DPW?

If an additional event happened in the future. It was forward looking and preventative, not damage control after the fact.

How do you know she was lying? Proof?

She either lied there or she lied in the federal investigation because she contradicted herself. She had no incentive to lie in the federal investigation, so I think we know that she lied in the GJ (in order to save herself from charges)

The OAG killed Spanier's mother? 🤣

They harassed Spanier's family which had adverse effects on her health.

But Spanier got very involved in the Sandusky affair. Had he maintained more distance he might not have ended up like this: Jail Bird

He didn't. He was only tagentially involved.

Gossip?

Not gossip. A first hand report from someone who was interviewed by Freeh and who talked to other who had been interviewed by Freeh (and witnessed them crying afterwards). You confuse gossip with actual first hand information a lot but have no problem with hearsay when it suits your purposes.

Prolly filled with lies about how he didn't know but then said they could be vulnerable for not reporting.

"Prolly" filled with the truth since Spanier is an honest and admirable man.

 

[jerot]

Very good question/point.. Mark Parker then CEO NIKE and Penn State Alumni made the decision to take Joe’s name off of the Child daycare ? Center building after the Freeh report was released …Paterno and I believe Lance Armstrong have been the only two figures where NIKE buildings have been renamed after recognizing them years earlier.

certainly the controversy around Paterno and having a childrens building named after him creates an awkward situation .. it just does .

Even Penn State has done zero to address the wrongdoing done to Joe…I can’t fault NIKE for taking his name off of a Childrens center …maybe another building but unfortunately not a Childrens center.

Freeh covered this.

Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.



According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State faculty member who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror at the Sandusky trial.

"At no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.

At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."

Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."



In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."

"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."

Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."

"Coaches are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.

At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeill. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.

According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."

Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.

Sandusky, 76, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.

According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."

But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that Freeh's investigators were hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators; both sets of investigators were also trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.

The records show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers argue that their client's constitutional rights were trampled under the mad rush to save Penn State's storied football program from the NCAA's threat to impose the "death penalty" on the Nittany Lions.

To save Penn State football, the NCAA and Penn State's trustees had worked out a consent decree with voluntary sanctions. The consent decree, which called for the university's unconditional surrender, required that two things happen by the opening of the 2012 college football season to save Penn State football: Jerry Sandusky had to be convicted and the Freeh Report had to be published.

Sandusky was indicted by a grand jury on Nov. 5, 2011, the details of which were leaked to reporter Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

On Nov. 21, 2011, Penn Stated agreed to hire Freeh.

The railroad was running right on schedule. And Judge John Cleland, who presided over Sandusky's trial, demonstrated time and time again that he was willing to sacrifice Sandusky's constitutional rights to keep the trains running on time.

On Dec. 12, 2011, an off-the-record meeting was held at the Hilton Garden Inn at State College, attended by the trial judge, John Cleland, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and a district magistrate judge. At the off-the-record hotel meeting, Sandusky's lawyers agreed to waive a preliminary hearing where they would have had their only pre-trial chance to question the eight alleged victims who would testify at trial against Sandusky.

For any defense lawyer, this unusual conference led to a decision that was akin to slitting your own throat. But Sandusky's defense lawyers were completely overwhelmed by the task of defending their client against ten different accusers -- two of whom were imaginary boys in the shower -- while confined to a blitzkrieg trial schedule.

On Feb. 29, 2012, Amendola sought a two-month delay for the trial that was denied by Judge Cleland.

On the eve of the Sandusky trial, Amendola and his co-counsel, Karl Rominger, made a motion to withdraw as Sandusky's defense lawyers because, as Amendola told the judge, "We are not prepared to go to trial at this time."

The motion was denied.

In an affidavit, Amendola stated that "no attorney could have effectively represented Mr. Sandusky" given the "time constraints" imposed by Judge Cleland. Amendola stated that in the days and weeks before the Sandusky trial, he was hit with "more than 12,000 pages of discovery."

Those time constraints, Amendola stated, kept two expert forensic psychologists from participating in Sandusky's defense, which would have included reviewing the discovery in the case.

But under Judge Cleland, the Pennsylvania Railroad that Jerry Sandusky was riding on had to stay on schedule. And everybody knew it, including the prosecutors in the AG's office, as well as Freeh's investigators.

In the McChesney diary, on May 10, 2012, she noted in a conference call with Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil, two of Freeh's investigators, that Paw is going to talk to Fina, and that the "judge [is] holding firm on date of trial."

In his affidavit, Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, states that McChesney didn't receive this information from him.

"An obvious question arises as to whether or not the trial judge was communicating with a member of the Freeh Group, attorneys for the attorney general's office, or anyone else concerning the trial date," Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers seek to question Judge Cleland at an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether, and to what extent, collusion between the office of the attorney general, the Freeh investigation and the NCAA had an impact on the trial."

And "whether, as a result, defendant's right to a fair trial, and the effective assistance of his counsel, were negatively affected or compromised."

They were. Meanwhile, the trains were running on time.
On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty.

On July 12, 2012, the Freeh report was issued.

On July 23, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert and PSU President Rodney Erickson signed a consent decree that imposed sanctions on PSU football program.

Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 6, 2012, the Penn State football team, under new coach Bill O'Brien, gathered at the practice field at University Park for the official start of training camp.

On Sept. 1, l2012, the Nittany Lions played Ohio University at Beaver Stadium in the season opener, lost 24-14, en route to a 8-4 season.

So Penn State football was saved at the expense of Jerry Sandusky's constitutional rig

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers cite a history of leaks on grand jury investigations that deputy attorney general Frank Fina was the lead prosecutor on.

It began with a partial grand jury transcript in the bonus gate investigation that was leaked to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2009.

Next, the indictment of Sandusky was leaked to Sara Ganim in 2011, who was functioning as the press secretary for the AG's office.

Finally, the names of four state legislators who allegedly took bribes from Tyron Ali during an undercover operation -- and the amount of money and gifts that they took -- was leaked to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2014.

According to Sandusky's lawyers, "this form of prosecutorial misconduct" -- leaking -- had become "entrenched and flagrant" in the AG's office. Especially when Frank Fina was in charge of a grand jury investigation.

Fina has previously been disciplined for his overzealous and unprincipled actions in the Penn State investigation.

In February, the state Supreme Court in a 5-1 decision suspended Fina's law license for a year and a day after the state's office of disciplinary counsel found that Fina had improperly obtained grand jury testimony against three former Penn State officials from their own lawyer.

Fina had threatened to indict former Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, unless she became a cooperator in the grand jury against her own clients. To pull that off, the disciplinary board found, Fina had to deceive a grand jury judge about his true intentions when he interviewed Baldwin before the grand jury. And he had to browbeat Baldwin to the point where she was willing to betray the attorney-client privilege by testifying against her clients.

For her misconduct in the grand jury investigation of Penn State, the state Supreme Court gave Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, a public reprimand.


McChesney's diary is replete with constant, ongoing communication between Freeh's investigators and the AG's office while both investigations were up and running.

For example, in her diary McChesney makes reference to a 1998 police report that the Freeh team should not have had access to. The report was an investigation into the first incident involving Sandusky showering with a child, but the investigation had cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing.

In her diary, McChesney doesn't mention how the Freeh Group obtained that police report, but three lines later, McChesney wrote: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

McChesney's diary portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify 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."

According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them."

McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for youths.
In her diary, McChesney speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" from the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

In her diary, McChesney is also extremely knowledgable about what the AG was up to during its supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Penn State. She described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."

On March 7, 2012, McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.

On March 30, 2012, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina. Fina, according to Paw, was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."

She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."

In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.

Freeh's investigators also interviewed Baldwin on several occasions.

Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney in her diary as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts."

And the grand jury transcripts on Baldwin weren't the only documents the AG's office was sharing with Freeh's investigators. On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."

In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.

On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain," where Penn State administrators talked about how to handle Sandusky and his habit of showering with children.
McChesney wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."


On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."

McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.

The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."

The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest.

The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno, and the 1998 shower incident.

"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."

On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."

McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."

Both Coyle and Belcher got immunity to testify against Schultz. Meanwhile, there were several leakers on Schultz's supposedly secret file that he was keeping on Sandusky. As McChesney recorded in her diary, "Fina got papers from two different sources."

The cooperation between the attorney general's office and Freeh's investigators went both ways.
When Freeh's investigators, including McChesney, interviewed Penn State counsel Baldwin and learned somebody else in the attorney general's office was leaking her information, they knew they had to tell Fina.

"Paw: didn't tell Fina that Baldwin heard @ the charges before they happened, but will tell him that," McChesney wrote. Baldwin, McChesney added, told Freeh's investigators that "a colleague in the AG's office leaked that Curly, Schultz and Sandusky would be charged," and that Spanier "was stunned."


From the get-go, the prospect of Freeh's investigators working in tandem with the AG's office was laid out in emails circulated among Freeh's investigators.
"If we haven't, we should make certain that we determine the utility of looking into all the same areas of interest raised by the AG in the subpoenas, to ensure that we do not get 'scooped' [borrowing Louie's term used in connection with the recent federal subpoena]," Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for the Freeh Group, wrote his colleagues on Feb. 8, 2012.

"I think that we are delving into most of the same areas, but I am not sure at all," McNeill wrote.

"I want to make sure that we are comfortable that we have an understanding of all the areas the AG has inquired about in subpoenas [or otherwise if our contacts at the AG have provided us other insights] that we can state when asked -- as we certainly will be -- that we made a conscious, strategic decision as to whether to pursue those same lines of inquiry in some form," McNeill wrote.

Another term for those grand jury "insights" gleaned from our "contacts at the AG" -- leaks.
In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group about the feedback that Fina was getting from the grand jury.

"He [Fina] said that the feedback he received from jurors was that they wanted someone to take a 'fire hose' to Penn State and rinse away the bad that happened there. He [Fina] said that he still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”

The cooperation between the Freeh Group and the AG's office continued to go both ways. On June 26, 2012, Gregory Paw told Fina that the Louie Freeh report would be out by the week of July 13th.
Fina agreed to keep it confidential, and then, according to Paw, "He [Fina] also said that he was willing to sit with us and talk to the extent he can before the report is released if we wished for any feedback," Paw wrote.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Today is 4/23/22. Regarding the scandal and public opinion, nothing has changed outside this little fishbowl. Going forward nothing will change because all the facts, evidence, and truth will not change any narrative .
If released it will cement it even more, and that's why you see nothing from those involved in this.

 

[WHCANole]

You and I have discussed this before and as much as you want it to be true that PSU had major infractions, this is not true. I know you will never admit you are wrong (because you are a dishonest person) but for the benefit of others you maybe aren't familiar with your lies:

Please show me where in that press release that you linked it mentions major infractions (hint: it does not).

More important please show me in the OFFICIAL NCAA INFRACTIONS DATABASE where it shows that PSU has ever been found guilty of a major sanction.

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

Feel free to waste the rest of your weekend of those tasks.

Its right there in black and white and it cost PSU 60 million. Here is a statement from the NCAA explaining it: "I received your message about finding the Penn State report in LSDBi. As you might know, the Penn State situation is separate from a traditional enforcement case, so you will not find the sanctions in our major infractions database because it did not use that process. The sanctions are an action by the NCAA Executive Committee, which is the NCAA’s highest governance body and is composed of university and college presidents that oversee Association-wide issues."

More here including a link to the constitution. Infractions

 

[WHCANole]

Spanier's word as well as the word of others that ESPN said this. That's more corroboration than most things in this case but it is also congruent with why he would agree to the interview. I don't believe the ESPN producers believed this; I think they lied to get an interview.

So no proof. Cool

Please see the A9 report as well as Barron's comments here:

President Barron "Not A Fan" of the Freeh Report

President Eric Barron made perhaps his most definitive statement on the Freeh report to date in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press today, saying that he is "not a fan of the report."

onwardstate.com

No official repudiation. Cool

Multiple reports from multiple people. Again, that's more corroboration than almost everything else in this case.

So no proof. Cool

If an additional event happened in the future. It was forward looking and preventative, not damage control after the fact.

That's not what it says. He says vulnerable for not reporting now. Here is what one of his jurors said. "
Victoria Navazio said Monday that an email from Graham Spanier to former co-defendants Gary Schultz and Tim Curley showed that he knew children were at risk.

Spanier approved a plan on how to deal with a report that assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky showering with a boy in a team facility. In the email, he told the other two administrators that the “only downside” was if Sandusky did not respond properly “and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

“How else can you take that, other than they knew they should have been reporting it” to the then-Department of Public Welfare, said Navazio, three days after voting with 11 other jurors to convict the 68-year-old Spanier of a single misdemeanor count.

She either lied there or she lied in the federal investigation because she contradicted herself. She had no incentive to lie in the federal investigation, so I think we know that she lied in the GJ (in order to save herself from charges)

So no proof. Cool

They harassed Spanier's family which had adverse effects on her health.

So no proof. Cool

He didn't. He was only tagentially involved.

He was running the show as the emails made clear. He made the final decision not to report Sandusky to DPW as Tim Curley recommended after consulting with Joe (who by NCAA guidelines should not have been involved at that point).

Not gossip. A first hand report from someone who was interviewed by Freeh and who talked to other who had been interviewed by Freeh (and witnessed them crying afterwards).

Hearsay. So no proof. Cool

You confuse gossip with actual first hand information a lot but have no problem with hearsay when it suits your purposes.

So no proof. Cool

"Prolly" filled with the truth since Spanier is an honest and admirable man.

He is a liar and was found to be a criminal in a court of law. You use this criteria with Fina. Hypocrite.

 

[jerot]

Great post. And the next morning was too late. At that point, evidence and the child’s identity were lost rendering the incident to a he said, he said event and MM said he was uncertain of what he saw. Absent any other evidence means little could have been done other than report him to TSM

MM uncertain?

Because grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret, there is no available public transcript to show exactly what Mike McQueary said there, but it is clear from everything else he said about this incident, including his subsequent courtroom testimony, that he did not witness sodomy or any other form of sexual abuse that day in the Lasch locker room. His version of events morphed over time, but none of the narratives included witnessing overt sexual abuse.


Here’s what appears to have happened. On a Friday night, February 9, 2001, a full year earlier than the inaccurate date in the Grand Jury Presentment, Jerry Sandusky was indeed taking a shower with a Second Mile boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building.

Sandusky took it for granted that boys and men showered together after exercise. It was part of the way he was raised, an accepted part of the sports world. Though he had retired as a Penn State coach two years before, he could still use the facilities, and he sometimes brought the troubled Second Mile boys there for a workout, followed by a shower.
As he often did, Sandusky, whom everyone considered “a big kid” himself, was goofing around with the boy. They were snapping towels at each other, or perhaps slap boxing, according to both Sandusky and the boy in the shower. Mike McQueary, then 26, who had been a Penn State quarterback as an undergraduate, was halfway through his post-graduate education, while working as an assistant football coach. This Friday evening, he came to the Lasch building to retrieve tapes of possible recruits. On the way, he figured he might as well put his new shoes away in the locker room.
Before he opened the door to the locker room, McQueary heard slapping sounds. He thought they sounded sexual. As McQueary later put it when describing the scene, “Visualizations come to your head.” By the time he got to his locker at the near end of the wall, it had quieted down. Curious, he looked obliquely into the shower room through a mirror across the room and caught a glimpse of a boy in the shower. Then an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse. After closing his locker, he saw Jerry Sandusky walk out of the shower. Was his former coach a pedophile?
McQueary quickly left the building and called his father, John McQueary, and told him his suspicions. His father advised him to come right over to talk about it. Then John McQueary called his employer and friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a nephrologist, asking him to come over and help them sort out Mike’s disturbing experience.
Dranov attempted, using the diagnostic and interviewing skills that he used with patients, to get a clear description of the scene that had so upset his friend’s son. Dranov was unable to get Mike McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?” McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
Upon the advice of his father and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary took his concerns to legendary head coach Joe Paterno at his home the next day. Apparently because McQueary did not actually witness anything sexual, they did not suggest he contact the police, nor did they feel called upon to do so.


This was the only initiative McQueary ever took connected with the shower incident. Paterno subsequently told his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Tim Curley, about it, who told Vice President Gary Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz met with McQueary to hear what he had seen and heard. From that conversation, they concluded that Sandusky had been “horsing around” with a kid and that, while it was not sexual abuse, it wasn’t a good idea, particularly because they remembered that a parent had complained back in 1998 about Sandusky showering with her child (details on that incident shortly).
So Curley told Sandusky that as a result of someone (he didn’t name McQueary) complaining about the shower incident, he should stop working out with Second Mile kids on campus, and there the matter was left, case closed.
McQueary apparently calmed down and accepted that he may have overreacted and that perhaps Sandusky had just been “horsing around.” He remained at least overtly friendly with Jerry Sandusky over the following years. He signed up for the Sandusky Celebrity Golf Event in the fall of 2001, just four months after the shower incident, then took part in other Sandusky charity-related events, such as flag football fund-raisers coached by Sandusky in March 2002 and April 2004 and another golf event in 2003.

By the time the police questioned McQueary about the shower incident in late 2010, he couldn’t remember exactly when it occurred, and he said that it happened during spring break of 2002, more than a year after the actual date. At the time, McQueary was a 6’ 4”, 220-pound 26-year-old. Some critics would later question why, if he had witnessed horrifying child sexual abuse, he would not have rushed in to put a stop to the behavior.
McQueary’s story changed several times after the police told him that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile, as we will see in Chapter 12. In response to the police telling him that Sandusky was a child molester, McQueary searched his decade-old memory and now “remembered” something that he had not reported back in 2001 -- that he had seen Sandusky with his hips moving against a boy’s backside in the shower.
In short, Mike McQueary did not witness Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower, although he later came to believe that he had. At the time of the incident, he overheard slapping sounds and interpreted them as being sexual.

We know a great deal more about this incident because we know the identity of that boy, a Second Miler named Allan Myers, who was nearly 14 years old at the time, not ten, and who remained friends with Sandusky until after the allegations created a public furor in November 2011. Sandusky later recalled that shower with Myers in a 2013 interview with reporter John Ziegler:
“He [Allan] turned on every shower [and] he was like wild, he put soap on himself and was sliding, he was seeing how far he could slide. I remember that. Then we may have been like slapping towels, slap boxing, doing something like that.”
Here Sandusky laughed, remembering that “he [Allan] always, no matter what, he’d always get the last lick in."
Recalling his relationship with Allan Myers, Sandusky said, “He was like family. We did all kinds of things together. We studied. We tutored. We worked out. He went to California with my wife and me twice. He spoke for the Second Mile numerous times.” This all took place after the 2001 shower incident. “He asked me to speak at his high school graduation, and I did. He stayed with us the summer after his high school graduation, worked part-time jobs with classes. He would go home on weekends. We went to his wedding.”
Indeed, Myers, a Marine who had recently received an honorable discharge at the time the allegations broke, came forward to defend Sandusky, telling Sandusky’s lawyer and his investigator, Curtis Everhart, what had actually happened.


Myers, born on Feb. 28, 1987, had endured his parents’ volatile marriage, in which he witnessed his father threatening his mother with a gun. His guidance counselor suggested Myers for the Second Mile program, which he attended as a fourth and fifth grader, getting to know Jerry Sandusky the second year. Myers said that Sandusky was a “father figure” associated with “many positive events” in his life. On “Senior Night” at a West Branch High School football game, Myers asked Sandusky to walk out onto the field with his mother, as the loudspeaker announced, “Father, Jerry Sandusky,” along with his mother’s name.
About the McQueary shower incident, Myers said, "This particular night is very clear in my mind.” In the shower after a workout, he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker area." Myers said that he recalled hearing a locker slam but he never saw who closed it. Although McQueary would later claim that both Sandusky and Myers saw him, neither of them had any idea he was there that night.
Myers repeatedly and emphatically denied that Jerry Sandusky had ever sexually abused him. “Never, ever, did anything like that occur.” Yes, Sandusky had put his hand on his left knee while he was driving, but that didn’t bother him. “I often would stay at Jerry’s home overnight,” he said. “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else. On many occasions there were numerous people at his home. I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.”
The only thing that made Myers feel uncomfortable and violated was his September 2011 interview with Pennsylvania State Police officers. “They would try to put words in my mouth, take my statement out of context. The PSP investigators were clearly angry and upset when I would not say what they wanted to hear. My final words to the PSP were, ‘I will never have anything bad to say about Jerry.’”
Allan Myers also wrote a letter to the newspaper and the Pennsylvania attorney general and submitted a sworn statement to both the Pennsylvania State Police and a private investigator to the effect that he was not abused that night or any other time by Jerry Sandusky.
“I am one of those many Second Mile kids who became a part of Jerry’s ‘family.’ He has been a best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more,” Myers wrote to the attorney general. “We’ve worked together, competed together, traveled together and laughed together. I lived with Jerry and Dottie for three months. Jerry’s been there for me for 13 years; and stood beside me at my senior parent’s football night. I drove twelve hours to attend his mom’s funeral. I don’t know what I would have done without him.”
Myers wrote that letter on May 1, 2011. But like so many Second Milers, Myers subsequently found a lawyer, Andrew Shubin, and joined the throng of those seeking millions of dollars in compensation for alleged abuse. He did not testify at the trial, however. Both prosecution and defense lawyers knew that Allan Myers was the boy in the 2001 McQueary shower incident, but for their own strategic reasons, neither chose to identify him, so that the jury never learned that Myers was in fact the anonymous “Victim Number 2.”

The McQueary story of the alleged sodomy-in-the-shower became the linchpin of the entire case against Sandusky, lighting a fire under the investigation and creating a media firestorm, and it is what led to the firing of Penn State University President Graham Spanier and football Head Coach Joe Paterno, as well as subsequent lawsuits against Spanier and former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.

Ironically, the sodomy charge of “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” in the McQueary incident was among the few for which the jury found Sandusky not guilty, since the witness did not say that he had literally seen penetration. The jury did find Sandusky guilty of four other McQueary-related charges: “indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors and endangering a child's welfare.”

 

[MacNit07]

By "buying into a narrative", you mean reading emails from people like Curley and Spanier and Schultz that show clear as day that even THEY believed Sandusky was a problem? Emails that demonstrate that Joe knew about the 1998 naked showering incident? Emails that demonstrate that they collectively knew as early as 1998 that Sandusky was behaving inappropriately?

If that's the "narrative" I'm buying into -- guilty as charged. I can, in fact, read

But tell me more about why CJF is the bad guy for not speaking about Paterno during a pre-Rutgers presser. Ah yes, he must the villain in all of this.

Dude - being a problem can mean a lot of things. Those guys were railroaded- big time.

 

[MacNit07]

Very good question/point.. Mark Parker then CEO NIKE and Penn State Alumni made the decision to take Joe’s name off of the Child daycare ? Center building after the Freeh report was released …Paterno and I believe Lance Armstrong have been the only two figures where NIKE buildings have been renamed after recognizing them years earlier.

certainly the controversy around Paterno and having a childrens building named after him creates an awkward situation .. it just does .

Even Penn State has done zero to address the wrongdoing done to Joe…I can’t fault NIKE for taking his name off of a Childrens center …maybe another building but unfortunately not a Childrens center.

Yet a Penn State still happily takes Joe and Sue’s money…pathetic!

 

[bourbon n blues]

Yet a Penn State still happily takes Joe and Sue’s money…pathetic!

Penn State would take money from Hitler if he rose from the grave, it's money. They like money.

 

[psu1969a]

Before Jerry Sandusky, Penn State football had another serial sexual predator. This is the untold story of his crimes and the fight to bring him to justice.

When Jerry Sandusky's crimes came to light in 2011, the world thought it was the first time Joe Paterno and Penn State had faced a serial sexual predator in their midst. But that was not the case. This is the story of the predator who had come before.

www.espn.com

For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy

ESPN -- yawn!

 

[WHCANole]

The emails are not clear as day. In fact, you are reading them wrong.

They are clear to unbiased folk. JoeBots, not so much.

 

[WHCANole]

Aware of "accusations". Ok. I'll agree.

Then what? Apparently they were then aware that nothing came from it. What do you think they thought of that?

It's called a pattern

 

[WHCANole]

It's not "denying", it's looks at the facts. You have apparently NOT looked at the facts.

We have but we don't have your religious views.

I'm never afraid to look at all available data even if it leads me to uncomfortable or unpopular opinions.

If they agree with your religion.

I suggest you adopt the same approach.

Enjoy your weekend.

I suggest you you get deprogrammed.

 

[WHCANole]

It has worked to a degree, Jerry has been exonerated in the eyes of many. He's as pure as the driven snow and is just a victim of collateral damage caused by the evil plot to get rid of Joe.

Great point. The JoeBots are faced with a dilemma. If Jerry is a monster, then the evidence shows that Joe and CSS didn't do enough and failed morally and legally. If Jerry is innocent then the whole narrative of PSU guilt goes away. Except he's guilty. So, they doubled down and are going with an even more crazy narrative of conspiracy.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Great post. And the next morning was too late. At that point, evidence and the child’s identity were lost rendering the incident to a he said, he said event and MM said he was uncertain of what he saw. Absent any other evidence means little could have been done other than report him to TSM

It's not a great post, it's a rather poor post. This stuff has been bandied about since day one and it's not uncommon for someone to be shocked into inaction in the moment.
They covered it up, it's over , and the narrative will not change . As I said , I know someone in the case that has seen all of the evidence and has talked to more people than testified in the various trials .
They knew Jerry was accused in 98, all of them, then slow played it in 02.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Its right there in black and white and it cost PSU 60 million. Here is a statement from the NCAA explaining it: "I received your message about finding the Penn State report in LSDBi. As you might know, the Penn State situation is separate from a traditional enforcement case, so you will not find the sanctions in our major infractions database because it did not use that process. The sanctions are an action by the NCAA Executive Committee, which is the NCAA’s highest governance body and is composed of university and college presidents that oversee Association-wide issues."

More here including a link to the constitution. Infractions

There is ZERO mention of a major infraction and this is PROVEN by the fact that it isn't listed in the database. Please show me in the database where PSU has had a major infraction. I'll wait.

 

[PSU2UNC]

They are clear to unbiased folk.

Agreed. They are perfectly clear and they are exculpatory to C/S/S.

 

[PSU2UNC]

So no proof. Cool

This is just as much if not more "proof" as the "proof" that convicted four people. It is people's word. I trust Spanier and Anderson's words over a bunch of 25 year old with criminals pasts who all conveniently have the same civil attorney.

No official repudiation. Cool

The A9 report and the President saying it is crap is about as close to official as you will get. They won't "officially" disavow it because that will prove they not only wasted their money on it but handled the entire situation wrong. Like you, they will never admit to being wrong.

Here is what one of his jurors said. "

LOL, like I care what one of the jurors thought. That doesn't make it correct

Hearsay. So no proof. Cool

How is it hearsay? It is Dick Anderson saying it. He was interviewed by Freeh and has spoken on the record about what a farce that process was. That isn't hearsay that is first hand accounting.

He is a liar and was found to be a criminal in a court of law. You use this criteria with Fina. Hypocrite.

So if you think Spanier cannot be trusted because he has a criminal record than any of the accusers who has a criminal record also cannot be trusted, correct? Want me to run through the list of who all has been convicted of far worse things than Spanier?

 

[jerot]

Spanier's word as well as the word of others that ESPN said this. That's more corroboration than most things in this case but it is also congruent with why he would agree to the interview. I don't believe the ESPN producers believed this; I think they lied to get an interview.

Please see the A9 report as well as Barron's comments here:

President Barron "Not A Fan" of the Freeh Report

President Eric Barron made perhaps his most definitive statement on the Freeh report to date in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press today, saying that he is "not a fan of the report."

onwardstate.com

Multiple reports from multiple people. Again, that's more corroboration than almost everything else in this case.

If an additional event happened in the future. It was forward looking and preventative, not damage control after the fact.

She either lied there or she lied in the federal investigation because she contradicted herself. She had no incentive to lie in the federal investigation, so I think we know that she lied in the GJ (in order to save herself from charges)

They harassed Spanier's family which had adverse effects on her health.

He didn't. He was only tagentially involved.

Not gossip. A first hand report from someone who was interviewed by Freeh and who talked to other who had been interviewed by Freeh (and witnessed them crying afterwards). You confuse gossip with actual first hand information a lot but have no problem with hearsay when it suits your purposes.

"Prolly" filled with the truth since Spanier is an honest and admirable man.

He is also a good fisherman.

What if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?

And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?

There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, lazy and gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.


Yesterday, on veteran TV reporter John Ziegler's podcast, John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.

Curley and Schultz told Spanier that the person who had given the report "was not sure what he saw because it was around the corner and that what he has reported was described as "horse play" or "horsing around." In his report, Snedden said that Spanier "assumed the terminology of horse play or horsing around came from Joe Paterno."

"They all agreed that Curley would talk to Jerry Sandusky, tell him not to bring kids into the locker room facilities," Snedden wrote. "And Curley was to tell the Second Mile management that it was not good for any of the Second Mile kids to come to the athletic locker room facilities, and that they should suspend that practice."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, never was told "who the person was who made the report. But "nothing was described as a sexual or criminal in any way," Snedden wrote.

The initial conversation between Spanier, Curley and Schultz about the Sandusky shower incident lasted 10 minutes, Snedden wrote. A few days later, Curley told Spanier "in person that the discussion had taken place and that everything went well."

"The issue never came up again with Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky, or anyone," Snedden wrote. "It did not appear very significant to anyone at the time."


Gary Schultz corroborated Spanier's account. Schultz told Snedden that back in February 2001, Tim Curley told him "something to the effect that Jerry Sandusky had been in the shower with a kid horsing around and wrestling. And Mike McQueary or a graduate assistant walked in and observed it. And McQueary or the graduate assistant was concerned."

Schultz believed the source of Curley's information was Joe Paterno, and that the conduct involved was horseplay.

"McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place," Snedden wrote after interviewing Schultz. "McQueary did not say anything indicative of an incident of a serious sexual nature."

While Snedden was investigating Spanier, Louie Freeh was writing his overpriced $8.3 million report where he came to the opposite conclusion that Snedden did, that there was a coverup at Penn State. Only Louie Freeh didn't talk to Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier relatively briefly, at the end of his investigation, when he had presumably already come to his conclusions.

Ironically, one of the things Spanier told Freeh was that Snedden was also investigating what happened at Penn State. But that didn't seem to effect the conclusions of the Louie Freeh report, Snedden said. He wondered why.

He also wondered why his report had no effect on the attorney general's office, which had already indicted Curley and Schultz, and was planning to indict Spanier.

"I certainly think that if the powers that be . . . knew what was in his report, Snedden said, "They would certainly have to take a hard look at what they were doing."

Freeh and the AG, Snedden said, should have wanted to know "who was interviewed [by Sneddedn] and what did they say. I mean this is kind of pertinent to what we're doing," Snedden said of the investigations conducted by Freeh and the AG.

"If your goal in any investigation is to determine the facts of the case period, the circumstance should have been hey, we'll be happy to obtain any and all facts," Snedden said.

Snedden said he understood, however, why Freeh was uninterested in his report.

"It doesn't fit the narrative that he's [Louie Freeh] going for," Snedden said.

Freeh was on a tight deadline, Ziegler reminded Snedden. Freeh had to get his report out at a highly-anticipated press conference. And the Freeh report had to come out before the start of the football season. So the NCAA could drop the hammer on Penn State.

"He [Freeh] doesn't have time to read a hundred page report," Snedden said. He agreed with Ziegler that the whole disclosure of the Freeh report was "orchestrated" to come out right before the football season started.

It may have been good timing for the news media and the NCAA, Snedden said about the release of the Louie Freeh report. But it didn't make much sense from an investigator's point of view.


"I just don't understand why," Snedden told Ziegler, "why would you ignore more evidence. Either side that it lands on, why would you ignore it?"

Good question.

Snedden was aghast about the cost of the Louie Freeh report. His six-month federal investigation, Snedden said, "probably cost the federal government and the taxpayers $50,000 at the most. And he [Freeh] spent $8.3 million," Snedden said. "Unbelievable."

In a statement released March 24th, Freeh hailed the conviction of Spanier as having confirmed and verified "all the findings and facts" of the Freeh report. On Ziegler's podcast, however, Snedden was dismissive of Freeh's statement.

"It's like a preemptive strike to divert people's attention from the actual conviction for a misdemeanor," Snedden said about Freeh. Along with the fact that he jury found "no cover up no conspiracy," Snedden said.

"In a rational world Louie Freeh is completely discredited," Ziegler said. "The Freeh report is a joke." On the podcast, Ziegler ripped the "mainstream media morons" who said that the jury verdict vindicated Freeh.

"Which is horrendous," Snedden added.

Ziegler asked Snedden if he had any doubt that an innocent man was convicted last week.

"That's what I believe, one hundred percent," Snedden said about the "insane jury verdict."

About the Penn State scandal, Snedden said, "I've got to say it needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be examined by a competent law enforcement authority." And that's a law enforcement authority that "doesn't have any political connections with anybody on the boards of trustees when this thing hit the fan."

As for Snedden, he left the Penn State campus thinking, "Where is the crime?"

"This case has been all about emotion," Ziegler said. "It was never about facts."

"Exactly," Snedden said.

As someone who has spent the past five years investigating the "Billy Doe" case, I can testify that when the subject is sex abuse, and the media is involved, the next stop is the Twilight Zone. Where hysteria reigns, and logic and common sense go out the window.

Earlier in the podcast, Ziegler talked about the "dog and pony show" put on by the prosecution at the Spanier trial. It's a good example of what happens once you've entered the Twilight Zone.


At the Spanier trial, the 28-year-old known as Victim No. 5 was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. When the jury came out, they were surprised to see Victim No. 5 already seated on the witness stand.

As extra sheriff's deputies patrolled the courtroom, the judge announced to the jury that the next witness would be referred to as "John Doe."

I was in the courtroom that day, and I thought the hoopla over Victim No. 5's appearance was bizarre and prejudicial to the case. In several sex abuse trials that I have covered in Philadelphia, the victim's real name was always used in court, starting from the moment when he or she was sworn in in the courtroom as a witness.

The judges and the prosecutors could always count on the media to censor itself, by not printing the real names of alleged victims out of some misguided social justice policy that borders on lunacy. At the exact same time they're hanging the defendants out to dry.

Talk about rigging a contest by what's supposed to be an impartial media.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecutor proceeded to place a box of Kleenex next to the witness stand. John Doe seemed composed until the prosecutor asked if he had ever been sexually abused. Right on cue, the witness started whimpering.

"Yes," he said.

By whom, the prosecutor asked.

By Jerry Sandusky, John Doe said, continuing to whimper.

The actual details of the alleged sex abuse were never explained. The jury could have left the courtroom believing that Victim No. 5 had been sexually assaulted or raped.

But the sexual abuse Victim No. 5 was allegedly subjected to was that Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

For that alleged abuse, Victim No. 5 collected $8 million.


I kid you not.

There was also much confusion over the date of the abuse.

First, John Doe said that the abuse took place when he was 10 years old, back in 1998. Then, the victim changed his story to say he was abused the first time he met Sandusky, back when he was 12 or 13 years old, in 2000 or 2001, but definitely before 9/11, because he could never forget 9/11. Next, the victim said that he was abused after 9/11, when he would have been 14.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution used "John Doe" or Victim No. 5 for one main purpose: to prove to the jury that he had been abused after the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident of February, 2001. To show the jury that more victims were abused after Spanier, Curley and Schultz had decided to initiate their alleged coverup following the February 2001 shower incident.

But there was only one problem. To prove John Doe had a relationship with Sandusky, the prosecution introduced as an exhibit a photo taken of the victim with Sandusky.

Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.

 

[WHCANole]

There is ZERO mention of a major infraction and this is PROVEN by the fact that it isn't listed in the database. Please show me in the database where PSU has had a major infraction. I'll wait.

Read what I provided you. It was WORSE than a major infraction and so was handled differently. It IS an infraction and whether it is in the database is not relevant. Reading is fundamental. And you are wrong.

 

[WHCANole]

Agreed. They are perfectly clear and they are exculpatory to C/S/S.

Really, so why then did a jury convict Spanky on the basis largely of that email and his statement for which he went to jail? I guess it wasn't exculpatory was it? I guess you have a different definition of "exculpatory" than most of the rest of the world who are not JoeBots.

 

[WHCANole]

This is just as much if not more "proof" as the "proof" that convicted four people. It is people's word. I trust Spanier and Anderson's words over a bunch of 25 year old with criminals pasts who all conveniently have the same civil attorney.

Got any names for the gossip? They had names at trial. Anderson is a JoeBot and Spanier a convicted liar. So, as I said, no proof. BTW did Anderson talk to anyone at ESPN. If so, who?

The A9 report and the President saying it is crap is about as close to official as you will get.

The A9 are JoeBots who ran on a platform of denying Joe's moral failure. they were a classic case of confirmation bias and religious fervor. Barron never reviewed the document as he promised and made those remarks to keep the donations rolling in. It is not official in any way especially the A9 conspiracy theories.

They won't "officially" disavow it because that will prove they not only wasted their money on it but handled the entire situation wrong.

They won't officially disavow it because it is the truth.

Like you, they will never admit to being wrong.

But like me, they were right

LOL, like I care what one of the jurors thought. That doesn't make it correct

It is correct nonetheless. The juror, not a JoeBot read the email the same way the rest of us Joe atheists do.

How is it hearsay? It is Dick Anderson saying it. He was interviewed by Freeh and has spoken on the record about what a farce that process was.

He is a JoeBot

That isn't hearsay that is first hand accounting.

Not of what others may have said which you brought up. That is hearsay

So if you think Spanier cannot be trusted because he has a criminal record

Because his protestation of his innocence is for the crime for which he was convicted.

than any of the accusers who has a criminal record also cannot be trusted, correct?

If you are talking about the crimes they committed unrelated to the Sandusky scandal then I would not trust them on their maintaining their innocence of THOSE crimes.

Want me to run through the list of who all has been convicted of far worse things than Spanier?

However, that does not mean that they lied about being molested. Gosh you are simple.

 

[MacNit07]

Penn State would take money from Hitler if he rose from the grave, it's money. They like money.

I hope that’s not true - that is more than pathetic.

 

[MacNit07]

Really, so why then did a jury convict Spanky on the basis largely of that email and his statement for which he went to jail? I guess it wasn't exculpatory was it? I guess you have a different definition of "exculpatory" than most of the rest of the world who are not JoeBots.

And OJ was found not guilty. Kangaroo Courts and Judges are not the final arbiter of right/wrong.

 

[WHCANole]

And OJ was found not guilty. Kangaroo Courts and Judges are not the final arbiter of right/wrong.

So what is? Your personal opinion based on a bias for the school? Spanier was convicted and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the US. OJ was convicted in a civil court. How in the world do you find his email to be "exculpatory" regarding his guilt?

 

[jerot]

Today is 4/23/22. Regarding the scandal and public opinion, nothing has changed outside this little fishbowl. Going forward nothing will change because all the facts, evidence, and truth will not change any narrative .
If released it will cement it even more, and that's why you see nothing from those involved in this.

As it should.

What if that infamous locker room incident that Mike McQueary supposedly witnessed 16 years ago -- featuring a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with an underage boy -- had nothing to do with sex? And what if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?

And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?

There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, lazy and gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.


Yesterday, on veteran TV reporter John Ziegler's podcast, John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.

Curley and Schultz told Spanier that the person who had given the report "was not sure what he saw because it was around the corner and that what he has reported was described as "horse play" or "horsing around." In his report, Snedden said that Spanier "assumed the terminology of horse play or horsing around came from Joe Paterno."

"They all agreed that Curley would talk to Jerry Sandusky, tell him not to bring kids into the locker room facilities," Snedden wrote. "And Curley was to tell the Second Mile management that it was not good for any of the Second Mile kids to come to the athletic locker room facilities, and that they should suspend that practice."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, never was told "who the person was who made the report. But "nothing was described as a sexual or criminal in any way," Snedden wrote.

The initial conversation between Spanier, Curley and Schultz about the Sandusky shower incident lasted 10 minutes, Snedden wrote. A few days later, Curley told Spanier "in person that the discussion had taken place and that everything went well."

"The issue never came up again with Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky, or anyone," Snedden wrote. "It did not appear very significant to anyone at the time."


Gary Schultz corroborated Spanier's account. Schultz told Snedden that back in February 2001, Tim Curley told him "something to the effect that Jerry Sandusky had been in the shower with a kid horsing around and wrestling. And Mike McQueary or a graduate assistant walked in and observed it. And McQueary or the graduate assistant was concerned."

Schultz believed the source of Curley's information was Joe Paterno, and that the conduct involved was horseplay.

"McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place," Snedden wrote after interviewing Schultz. "McQueary did not say anything indicative of an incident of a serious sexual nature."

While Snedden was investigating Spanier, Louie Freeh was writing his overpriced $8.3 million report where he came to the opposite conclusion that Snedden did, that there was a coverup at Penn State. Only Louie Freeh didn't talk to Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier relatively briefly, at the end of his investigation, when he had presumably already come to his conclusions.

Ironically, one of the things Spanier told Freeh was that Snedden was also investigating what happened at Penn State. But that didn't seem to effect the conclusions of the Louie Freeh report, Snedden said. He wondered why.

He also wondered why his report had no effect on the attorney general's office, which had already indicted Curley and Schultz, and was planning to indict Spanier.

"I certainly think that if the powers that be . . . knew what was in his report, Snedden said, "They would certainly have to take a hard look at what they were doing."

Freeh and the AG, Snedden said, should have wanted to know "who was interviewed [by Sneddedn] and what did they say. I mean this is kind of pertinent to what we're doing," Snedden said of the investigations conducted by Freeh and the AG.

"If your goal in any investigation is to determine the facts of the case period, the circumstance should have been hey, we'll be happy to obtain any and all facts," Snedden said.

Snedden said he understood, however, why Freeh was uninterested in his report.

"It doesn't fit the narrative that he's [Louie Freeh] going for," Snedden said.

Freeh was on a tight deadline, Ziegler reminded Snedden. Freeh had to get his report out at a highly-anticipated press conference. And the Freeh report had to come out before the start of the football season. So the NCAA could drop the hammer on Penn State.

"He [Freeh] doesn't have time to read a hundred page report," Snedden said. He agreed with Ziegler that the whole disclosure of the Freeh report was "orchestrated" to come out right before the football season started.

It may have been good timing for the news media and the NCAA, Snedden said about the release of the Louie Freeh report. But it didn't make much sense from an investigator's point of view.


"I just don't understand why," Snedden told Ziegler, "why would you ignore more evidence. Either side that it lands on, why would you ignore it?"

Good question.

Snedden was aghast about the cost of the Louie Freeh report. His six-month federal investigation, Snedden said, "probably cost the federal government and the taxpayers $50,000 at the most. And he [Freeh] spent $8.3 million," Snedden said. "Unbelievable."

In a statement released March 24th, Freeh hailed the conviction of Spanier as having confirmed and verified "all the findings and facts" of the Freeh report. On Ziegler's podcast, however, Snedden was dismissive of Freeh's statement.

"It's like a preemptive strike to divert people's attention from the actual conviction for a misdemeanor," Snedden said about Freeh. Along with the fact that he jury found "no cover up no conspiracy," Snedden said.

"In a rational world Louie Freeh is completely discredited," Ziegler said. "The Freeh report is a joke." On the podcast, Ziegler ripped the "mainstream media morons" who said that the jury verdict vindicated Freeh.

"Which is horrendous," Snedden added.

Ziegler asked Snedden if he had any doubt that an innocent man was convicted last week.

"That's what I believe, one hundred percent," Snedden said about the "insane jury verdict."

About the Penn State scandal, Snedden said, "I've got to say it needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be examined by a competent law enforcement authority." And that's a law enforcement authority that "doesn't have any political connections with anybody on the boards of trustees when this thing hit the fan."

As for Snedden, he left the Penn State campus thinking, "Where is the crime?"

"This case has been all about emotion," Ziegler said. "It was never about facts."

"Exactly," Snedden said.

As someone who has spent the past five years investigating the "Billy Doe" case, I can testify that when the subject is sex abuse, and the media is involved, the next stop is the Twilight Zone. Where hysteria reigns, and logic and common sense go out the window.

Earlier in the podcast, Ziegler talked about the "dog and pony show" put on by the prosecution at the Spanier trial. It's a good example of what happens once you've entered the Twilight Zone.


At the Spanier trial, the 28-year-old known as Victim No. 5 was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. When the jury came out, they were surprised to see Victim No. 5 already seated on the witness stand.

As extra sheriff's deputies patrolled the courtroom, the judge announced to the jury that the next witness would be referred to as "John Doe."

I was in the courtroom that day, and I thought the hoopla over Victim No. 5's appearance was bizarre and prejudicial to the case. In several sex abuse trials that I have covered in Philadelphia, the victim's real name was always used in court, starting from the moment when he or she was sworn in in the courtroom as a witness.

The judges and the prosecutors could always count on the media to censor itself, by not printing the real names of alleged victims out of some misguided social justice policy that borders on lunacy. At the exact same time they're hanging the defendants out to dry.

Talk about rigging a contest by what's supposed to be an impartial media.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecutor proceeded to place a box of Kleenex next to the witness stand. John Doe seemed composed until the prosecutor asked if he had ever been sexually abused. Right on cue, the witness started whimpering.

"Yes," he said.

By whom, the prosecutor asked.

By Jerry Sandusky, John Doe said, continuing to whimper.

The actual details of the alleged sex abuse were never explained. The jury could have left the courtroom believing that Victim No. 5 had been sexually assaulted or raped.

But the sexual abuse Victim No. 5 was allegedly subjected to was that Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

For that alleged abuse, Victim No. 5 collected $8 million.


I kid you not.

There was also much confusion over the date of the abuse.

First, John Doe said that the abuse took place when he was 10 years old, back in 1998. Then, the victim changed his story to say he was abused the first time he met Sandusky, back when he was 12 or 13 years old, in 2000 or 2001, but definitely before 9/11, because he could never forget 9/11. Next, the victim said that he was abused after 9/11, when he would have been 14.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution used "John Doe" or Victim No. 5 for one main purpose: to prove to the jury that he had been abused after the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident of February, 2001. To show the jury that more victims were abused after Spanier, Curley and Schultz had decided to initiate their alleged coverup following the February 2001 shower incident.

But there was only one problem. To prove John Doe had a relationship with Sandusky, the prosecution introduced as an exhibit a photo taken of the victim with Sandusky.

Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Mindboggling -


Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.
That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.
In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.
"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."
That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.
"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."
As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.
The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.
As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."
"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."
"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.
"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.
As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.

All you're writing is fan fiction. Sad, pathetic fan fiction. They knew in 98 and they covered 02 up. And the entire world has moved on except some pathetic fan boys here.
Let's revisit this post in a year, then give, the ten. And let's see if you're anywhere closer to your "truth" .

 

[MacNit07]

So what is? Your personal opinion based on a bias for the school? Spanier was convicted and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the US. OJ was convicted in a civil court. How in the world do you find his email to be "exculpatory" regarding his guilt?

Not at all. A much higher authority. You may be able to figure it out. OJ was cleared of murder charges but was convicted for a much less punitive civil lawsuit. Spanier was cleared from from everything but a misdemeanor slap on the wrist that amounted to next to nothing. Absent politics, it would have been nothing. I made no comments on emails.

 

[WHCANole]

Not at all. A much higher authority.

Well the highest authority on this earth found the three guilty.

You may be able to figure it out.

I addressed that above

OJ was cleared of murder charges but was convicted for a much less punitive civil lawsuit.

OJ really has nothing to do with Spanier

Spanier was cleared from from everything but a misdemeanor slap on the wrist that amounted to next to nothing.

Too bad the victims of the pedophile he enabled can't say the same thing

Absent politics, it would have been nothing

What politics? Do you have proof of that?

. I made no comments on emails.

But that is what I was talking about when you quoted me.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Having a charge tossed or a verdict over turned does not mean you're cleared , it's similar to a not guilty verdict . It simply means the prosecution didn't prove the case. It's not some declaration of innocence.