ADVERTISEMENT

New JZ: The media doesn't realize It, but the "PSU Scandal" narrative is blowing up.

MtNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,601
34,793
1
The Media Doesn’t Realize It, But the ‘Penn State Scandal’ Narrative Is Blowing Up
by John Ziegler | 5:46 pm, October 12th, 2017


Jerry-Sandusky-via-New-York-Times-e1496412842292.jpg


To the vast majority of people, both in the news media and not, the “Penn State Scandal” is extremely old news and as dead and decided as Harvey Weinstein’s movie-making career. However, for a growing number of some of those still enthralled by the case, the truth is only now beginning to become clear. This as the dust finally beings to settle nearly six years after a massive firestorm, ignited by the shocking arrest of Jerry Sandusky, engulfed a city, a university, and several men of extremely high stature.

I have been often ridiculed by high-profile members of the media because I have never accepted the conventional narrative which they all so rapidly embraced back in November of 2011. While I hardly intended or anticipated doing so, I have somehow devoted most of the last five years of my life to figuring out what actually did, and did not happen in this saga. I have, on numerous occasions, including on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, declared that I know that I am right, but that I am also all-too-aware my fight for justice here is utterly doomed (Lauer, very politely, publicly declared my career over for taking a stance so dangerously contrary to the rest of the media herd).

While I am under no delusions that any widely accepted vindication is imminently heading my direction, there have been a couple of recent developments about which I am compelled to write. In any other high-profile case they would be bombshells which would create huge news. However, in this one, thanks to the entire media industrial complex being completely invested in what I refer to as a “fairytale,” I am quite confident that, unless you closely follow my little Twitter feed, you haven’t even heard about them.

Just a couple of days ago, a stunning email emerged (after just sitting for months, unnoticed, on Pennsylvania’s website devoted to documents related to the various legal cases related to the scandal) which may put the essence of this case in a very different light. It is an exchange between the then lead Sandusky prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, and the only direct witness to ever testify, then Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.

Here is the email (the red lines were added by the researcher who found it):

unnamed-1.jpg


Even for those who don’t know much about the case, this document is stunning. This is the day after legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno was fired based entirely on the media’s round-the-clock reporting about a leaked 23-page grand jury presentment, and the prosecutor is admitting to Mike that there is a lot of false information out there but that, despite his desire to correct it, he needs to keep quiet.

Amazingly, this email was not provided in discovery to the defense teams of either Sandusky or former Penn State president Graham Spanier for their criminal trials. This alone should get people in the legal profession to at least wonder what the heck is really going on here, but there is much more in the email of direct evidentiary value.

Specifically, as McQueary lists his grievances regarding all the false reporting of his story, he makes a shocking reference to his meeting with Joe Paterno the morning after he allegedly saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the Penn State showers (it is important to point out that McQuearey has never, despite many attempts, definitively testified to what he thinks he saw in the “two or three” seconds he peered into the shower through the reflection in a bathroom mirror, and that the now adult male Penn State paid millions of dollars as the “victim” of this incident is on record, multiple times, as married Marine, saying that nothing bad happened).

In the email, McQueary tells Eshbach that, contrary to the reporting of Sara Ganim (who ended up winning a Pulitzer Prize for her work on this case for a local newspaper and is now at CNN), his father did NOT go with him to that meeting with Paterno. He then states, “He was out of town the night before.”

This seemingly innocuous comment could very well dramatically alter nearly the entire record of what really went down here. You see, according to McQueary’s later testimonies, he met late “the night before” with his father and Dr. Jonathon Dranov, for whom his dad worked. This urgent meeting, late on a Friday night (February 9th, 2001, though McQueary wrongly testified ten years later, multiple times, that it was March 1, 2002, before the prosecution finally acknowledged everyone involved had somehow gotten the wrong date, month, and year) in mid-winter has always been THE best, and perhaps only evidence, that what McQueary witnessed that night was something he thought at the time to be very significant.

As someone who has been long convinced, for a multitude of reasons (including Dr. Dranov’s own testimony and the fact that the “victim” never testified at trial), that McQueary never saw, nor thought he saw– until investigators came to him ten years later and effectively told him Sandusky was pedophile–any sort of sex act, this late-night meeting has been literally the only “fact” that bothered me. However, based on this “new” email, it is now reasonable to conclude that this meeting likely never actually occurred that night.

Obviously, if McQueary’s dad was “out of town the night before,” then Mike could not possibly have met with him and his colleague Dr. Dranov. If the meeting took place later that weekend, as I now suspect, then there was no “emergency” and there is absolutely nothing in McQueary’s behavior to suggest he witnessed anything more than Sandusky naked with a boy in a shower, which is understandably troubling, but a world away from the charge of “anal rape” which ten years later created the media firestorm which led to Paterno’s firing and started a dramatic domino effect of injustice here.

Now, to be fair, it is theoretically possible that McQueary is somehow referring to Paterno being out of town “the night before” his meeting with the head coach, but that scenario has major problems. One is that Paterno was NOT out of town on that Friday. A second is that he WAS out of town the night AFTER the incident. Even if McQueary’s writing is super weird in that email and he’s referring to Paterno, it still seems to indicate that his meeting with Dr. Dranov might have been Sunday (when Paterno would be out of town “the night before”) and the prosecution still has a major issue.

The email also brings greater scrutiny to why it is that the Dr. Dranov meeting was never mentioned in that grand jury presentment where the prosecution threw in literally everything it had in order to inflame the media and public. The first public mention of it doesn’t come until McQueary testifies a month AFTER he writes this email and it comes after he is under enormous criticism for not having done anything but call his dad (why call your dad when he lives nearby, unless he is “out of town”?) the night of the episode.

Occam’s Razor now strongly suggests that what really happened here was that, ten years later, no one remembered for sure when that meeting took place (again, they ALL got the YEAR wrong) and the prosecution decided that it was in everyone’s interest for it to have occurred that night. Since everyone involved was okay with that, and the media never raised the issue of how/why this was left out of the presentment, there was never any strong reason to doubt this critical part of the narrative.

That is, until now.

Here is a radio interview John Ziegler did today further explaining this development.

John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is a documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
 
Here's something I don't get. Why is Ziegler BURYING THE LEAD??? Blehar sort of did the same thing a few days ago (I did appreciate his response to me and why he structured his blog post as he did).

If you're wanting to build a narrative (and yes, I do still have an open mind for different narratives) --- the story here is Eshbach. She's a liar and a leaker. The liar part is 100% proven - right there in print!

She's also a conduit to Corbutt.

Start your narrative THERE. Don't start with McQueary. He's an incidental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Is Soapy still in jail?

Yes??

All righty then.

I have heard all I ever want to hear out of Mike McQueary. More than I ever wanted to hear. Him, Soapsuds, Drano, his old man, Rayko, Eshbach, Corbett, Judge Freeh, Emmert, Rodney - the whole miserable lot of them. A pox on all their houses. I wish they would all dry up and blow away. The next true thing any one of them ever say in their lives, will be their first.
 
Last edited:
Here's something I don't get. Why is Ziegler BURYING THE LEAD??? Blehar sort of did the same thing a few days ago (I did appreciate his response to me and why he structured his blog post as he did).

If you're wanting to build a narrative (and yes, I do still have an open mind for different narratives) --- the story here is Eshbach. She's a liar and a leaker. The liar part is 100% proven - right there in print!

She's also a conduit to Corbutt.

Start your narrative THERE. Don't start with McQueary. He's an incidental.

Rumor has it that hubby and Howard Stern may have been acquainted. Not suggesting that it had anything to do with the immaculate email......... but it sure would make sense.
 
Here's something I don't get. Why is Ziegler BURYING THE LEAD??? Blehar sort of did the same thing a few days ago (I did appreciate his response to me and why he structured his blog post as he did).

If you're wanting to build a narrative (and yes, I do still have an open mind for different narratives) --- the story here is Eshbach. She's a liar and a leaker. The liar part is 100% proven - right there in print!

She's also a conduit to Corbutt.

Start your narrative THERE. Don't start with McQueary. He's an incidental.
I tend to agree, although MM (obviously) was their conduit to pinning this on Penn State.
 
Rumor has it that hubby and Howard Stern may have been acquainted. Not suggesting that it had anything to do with the immaculate email......... but it sure would make sense.

Howard Stern .... immaculate email? What does that refer to?

Forgive me for not knowing (or if that's a joke that went 10 miles above my head :) ).
 
Howard Stern .... immaculate email? What does that refer to?

Forgive me for not knowing (or if that's a joke that went 10 miles above my head :) ).
Other posters know more than I do, but I think this was the screen name here that tipped off a Baltimore(?) police officer(?) about what MM supposedly witnessed.
 
Here's something I don't get. Why is Ziegler BURYING THE LEAD??? Blehar sort of did the same thing a few days ago (I did appreciate his response to me and why he structured his blog post as he did).

If you're wanting to build a narrative (and yes, I do still have an open mind for different narratives) --- the story here is Eshbach. She's a liar and a leaker. The liar part is 100% proven - right there in print!

She's also a conduit to Corbutt.

Start your narrative THERE. Don't start with McQueary. He's an incidental.
MM testified at Spanier's trial that Eschbach told him "they" were going to make some arrests and leak it. The new PCRA judge shut down the GJ leak stuff, unless the defense could provide court docs to prove otherwise. MM provided them with just that at Spanier's trial. If you pay attention, you'll be amazed at what you might learn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC and royboy
Howard Stern .... immaculate email? What does that refer to?

Forgive me for not knowing (or if that's a joke that went 10 miles above my head :) ).

A well known anti JVP zealot here sent an email to CCDA the day after Corbett was elected, giving notice that a Sandusky "incident" had been discussed here. It was curious to say the least.....especially the timing. It seems Mr. Stern had a history in law enforcement.
 
Other posters know more than I do, but I think this was the screen name here that tipped off a Baltimore(?) police officer(?) about what MM supposedly witnessed.

Ah, that's right. Thanks.

"Howard Stern" = Christopher Houser (not giving anything away there, his name's been in print). Yes, Baltimore cop. Also psudukie's real-life friend. :)
 
The media doesn't realize it? Does this mean the media is not catching on to the new developments? Or the media is about to pick up a new story and run with it? What is the immaculate email and does Franco know that they are infringing on his copyrights? Can Soapy be reached in protective custody for his thoughts? All this and more, on the next installment of "Things that 43 people care about", new on Fox.
 
The Media Doesn’t Realize It, But the ‘Penn State Scandal’ Narrative Is Blowing Up
by John Ziegler | 5:46 pm, October 12th, 2017


Jerry-Sandusky-via-New-York-Times-e1496412842292.jpg


To the vast majority of people, both in the news media and not, the “Penn State Scandal” is extremely old news and as dead and decided as Harvey Weinstein’s movie-making career. However, for a growing number of some of those still enthralled by the case, the truth is only now beginning to become clear. This as the dust finally beings to settle nearly six years after a massive firestorm, ignited by the shocking arrest of Jerry Sandusky, engulfed a city, a university, and several men of extremely high stature.

I have been often ridiculed by high-profile members of the media because I have never accepted the conventional narrative which they all so rapidly embraced back in November of 2011. While I hardly intended or anticipated doing so, I have somehow devoted most of the last five years of my life to figuring out what actually did, and did not happen in this saga. I have, on numerous occasions, including on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, declared that I know that I am right, but that I am also all-too-aware my fight for justice here is utterly doomed (Lauer, very politely, publicly declared my career over for taking a stance so dangerously contrary to the rest of the media herd).

While I am under no delusions that any widely accepted vindication is imminently heading my direction, there have been a couple of recent developments about which I am compelled to write. In any other high-profile case they would be bombshells which would create huge news. However, in this one, thanks to the entire media industrial complex being completely invested in what I refer to as a “fairytale,” I am quite confident that, unless you closely follow my little Twitter feed, you haven’t even heard about them.

Just a couple of days ago, a stunning email emerged (after just sitting for months, unnoticed, on Pennsylvania’s website devoted to documents related to the various legal cases related to the scandal) which may put the essence of this case in a very different light. It is an exchange between the then lead Sandusky prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, and the only direct witness to ever testify, then Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.

Here is the email (the red lines were added by the researcher who found it):

unnamed-1.jpg


Even for those who don’t know much about the case, this document is stunning. This is the day after legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno was fired based entirely on the media’s round-the-clock reporting about a leaked 23-page grand jury presentment, and the prosecutor is admitting to Mike that there is a lot of false information out there but that, despite his desire to correct it, he needs to keep quiet.

Amazingly, this email was not provided in discovery to the defense teams of either Sandusky or former Penn State president Graham Spanier for their criminal trials. This alone should get people in the legal profession to at least wonder what the heck is really going on here, but there is much more in the email of direct evidentiary value.

Specifically, as McQueary lists his grievances regarding all the false reporting of his story, he makes a shocking reference to his meeting with Joe Paterno the morning after he allegedly saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the Penn State showers (it is important to point out that McQuearey has never, despite many attempts, definitively testified to what he thinks he saw in the “two or three” seconds he peered into the shower through the reflection in a bathroom mirror, and that the now adult male Penn State paid millions of dollars as the “victim” of this incident is on record, multiple times, as married Marine, saying that nothing bad happened).

In the email, McQueary tells Eshbach that, contrary to the reporting of Sara Ganim (who ended up winning a Pulitzer Prize for her work on this case for a local newspaper and is now at CNN), his father did NOT go with him to that meeting with Paterno. He then states, “He was out of town the night before.”

This seemingly innocuous comment could very well dramatically alter nearly the entire record of what really went down here. You see, according to McQueary’s later testimonies, he met late “the night before” with his father and Dr. Jonathon Dranov, for whom his dad worked. This urgent meeting, late on a Friday night (February 9th, 2001, though McQueary wrongly testified ten years later, multiple times, that it was March 1, 2002, before the prosecution finally acknowledged everyone involved had somehow gotten the wrong date, month, and year) in mid-winter has always been THE best, and perhaps only evidence, that what McQueary witnessed that night was something he thought at the time to be very significant.

As someone who has been long convinced, for a multitude of reasons (including Dr. Dranov’s own testimony and the fact that the “victim” never testified at trial), that McQueary never saw, nor thought he saw– until investigators came to him ten years later and effectively told him Sandusky was pedophile–any sort of sex act, this late-night meeting has been literally the only “fact” that bothered me. However, based on this “new” email, it is now reasonable to conclude that this meeting likely never actually occurred that night.

Obviously, if McQueary’s dad was “out of town the night before,” then Mike could not possibly have met with him and his colleague Dr. Dranov. If the meeting took place later that weekend, as I now suspect, then there was no “emergency” and there is absolutely nothing in McQueary’s behavior to suggest he witnessed anything more than Sandusky naked with a boy in a shower, which is understandably troubling, but a world away from the charge of “anal rape” which ten years later created the media firestorm which led to Paterno’s firing and started a dramatic domino effect of injustice here.

Now, to be fair, it is theoretically possible that McQueary is somehow referring to Paterno being out of town “the night before” his meeting with the head coach, but that scenario has major problems. One is that Paterno was NOT out of town on that Friday. A second is that he WAS out of town the night AFTER the incident. Even if McQueary’s writing is super weird in that email and he’s referring to Paterno, it still seems to indicate that his meeting with Dr. Dranov might have been Sunday (when Paterno would be out of town “the night before”) and the prosecution still has a major issue.

The email also brings greater scrutiny to why it is that the Dr. Dranov meeting was never mentioned in that grand jury presentment where the prosecution threw in literally everything it had in order to inflame the media and public. The first public mention of it doesn’t come until McQueary testifies a month AFTER he writes this email and it comes after he is under enormous criticism for not having done anything but call his dad (why call your dad when he lives nearby, unless he is “out of town”?) the night of the episode.

Occam’s Razor now strongly suggests that what really happened here was that, ten years later, no one remembered for sure when that meeting took place (again, they ALL got the YEAR wrong) and the prosecution decided that it was in everyone’s interest for it to have occurred that night. Since everyone involved was okay with that, and the media never raised the issue of how/why this was left out of the presentment, there was never any strong reason to doubt this critical part of the narrative.

That is, until now.

Here is a radio interview John Ziegler did today further explaining this development.

John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is a documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
Let's be realistic, the media doesn't care. In their eyes, this story lost it's luster a long time ago and they've move on to other "attention grabbing" headlines a hundred times over since. Sad but true.
 
Damn, Zig is right!!! MM thinks JOE was out of town the night before, because he still thinks at the time of the email to Escbach that the date of the shower incident was March 1, 2002, not the correct date in February 2001. If you check the PSU football website, like MM most likely did, JVP was in Philly on March 1, 2002 being honored at a dinner.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022802aaa.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Here's something I don't get. Why is Ziegler BURYING THE LEAD??? Blehar sort of did the same thing a few days ago (I did appreciate his response to me and why he structured his blog post as he did).

If you're wanting to build a narrative (and yes, I do still have an open mind for different narratives) --- the story here is Eshbach. She's a liar and a leaker. The liar part is 100% proven - right there in print!

She's also a conduit to Corbutt.

Start your narrative THERE. Don't start with McQueary. He's an incidental.
He did focus on that in the radio interview.

How is that MM was a QB? A QB has to be a leader and decisive. Every action he took in this incident indicates he was neither. He was a follower of the OAG and didn't take any action consistent with what he purports he saw.

The only conclusion is that (a) the OAG had some goods on MM, (b) MM is extremely naive, or (c) after taking a well deserved beating in the media, he changed his story to look better. It could very well be all three.

Interesting that Zig cannot mention Ray by name. I guess there is still bad blood b/w them.
 
Question...Did MM lawyer up before he spoke to investigators? I think I know the answer. If so, that is telling.
 
I tend to agree, although MM (obviously) was their conduit to pinning this on Penn State.

More correctly (IMO) ......... MM would have been Corbett's conduit to pinning this on Penn State.

Eshbach likely just wanted to get Sandusky. Put the child molester away. It's a career-maker.

Eshbach's boss, of course, had other enemies besides Sandusky. Enemies that Eshbach wouldn't have had.

Thus, not inconceivable that Eshbach's boss might nudge her toward a couple "suggestions" as regards what does/doesn't make the GJP. Whispers in Jonelle's ear: "The key thing here is to get the child molester in jail. The ends justify the means on this one."

I'll admit ---- from my POV, I am smelling a bit of smoke here.
 
He did focus on that in the radio interview.

How is that MM was a QB? A QB has to be a leader and decisive. Every action he took in this incident indicates he was neither. He was a follower of the OAG and didn't take any action consistent with what he purports he saw.

The only conclusion is that (a) the OAG had some goods on MM, (b) MM is extremely naive, or (c) after taking a well deserved beating in the media, he changed his story to look better. It could very well be all three.

Interesting that Zig cannot mention Ray by name. I guess there is still bad blood b/w them.

Or, MM is really #%*!ing stupid.
 
The media doesn't realize it? Does this mean the media is not catching on to the new developments? Or the media is about to pick up a new story and run with it? What is the immaculate email and does Franco know that they are infringing on his copyrights? Can Soapy be reached in protective custody for his thoughts? All this and more, on the next installment of "Things that 43 people care about", new on Fox.
Oh, you can bet Franco knows everything. Cardboard Joe gives him a direct line on all the vital poop.
 
He did focus on that in the radio interview.

How is that MM was a QB? A QB has to be a leader and decisive. Every action he took in this incident indicates he was neither. He was a follower of the OAG and didn't take any action consistent with what he purports he saw.

The only conclusion is that (a) the OAG had some goods on MM, (b) MM is extremely naive, or (c) after taking a well deserved beating in the media, he changed his story to look better. It could very well be all three.

Interesting that Zig cannot mention Ray by name. I guess there is still bad blood b/w them.

Frankly --- MM was a big-talking but lousy QB too.

All sorts of yapping and talking in the week prior to the 1997 Michigan game.

Then the trick play doesn't work on the 1st play? McQueary cowered and took the sack. Didn't even try to avoid Glen Steele. Took another non-avoiding sack 2 plays later! And then he totally sucked the rest of the game too!

I do wish MM would speak someday. Why the hell not? He's got millions of dollars but nothing but decades of emptiness ahead.

It would probably do his soul some good to speak.

(on a tangent --- that goes for Fran Ganter too, who I've always thought knows some sort of secret. Fran: why exactly were you meeting with Gricar, Sloane, Ralston and Schreffler in October 1998?)
 
Last edited:
they don't care. it is too late.
Agree they don't care, but I also believe it's never too late.

This isn't about the court of public opinion. This is about OUR community - having been made to be duplicitous in Sandusky's crimes secondary to our culthood - deserving to know every ounce of truth there is to be extracted from every source and public record (yes, even the sealed ones) about the shitstorm that ravaged us.

I just want the truth.
 
Frankly --- MM was a big-talking but lousy QB too.

All sorts of yapping and talking in the week prior to the 1997 Michigan game.

Then the trick play doesn't work on the 1st play? McQueary cowered and took the sack. Didn't even try to avoid Glen Steele. Took another non-avoiding sack 2 plays later! And then he totally sucked the rest of the game too!

I do wish MM would speak someday. Why the hell not? He's got millions of dollars but nothing but decades of emptiness ahead.

It would probably do his soul some good to speak.

(on a tangent --- that goes for Fran Ganter too, who I've always thought knows some sort of secret. Fran: why exactly were you meeting with Gricar, Sloane, Ralston and Schreffler in October 1998?)
You need to HAVE a soul first, before speaking will do it any good.
 
Agree they don't care, but I also believe it's never too late.

This isn't about the court of public opinion. This is about OUR community - having been made to be duplicitous in Sandusky's crimes secondary to our culthood - deserving to know every ounce of truth there is to be extracted from every source and public record (yes, even the sealed ones) about the shitstorm that ravaged us.

I just want the truth.
Well that, and the fact that you live in a corrupt state that can (w/ the lapdog media's help) taint juries and put people in jail for crimes they didn't commit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
More correctly (IMO) ......... MM would have been Corbett's conduit to pinning this on Penn State.

Eshbach likely just wanted to get Sandusky. Put the child molester away. It's a career-maker.

Eshbach's boss, of course, had other enemies besides Sandusky. Enemies that Eshbach wouldn't have had.

Thus, not inconceivable that Eshbach's boss might nudge her toward a couple "suggestions" as regards what does/doesn't make the GJP. Whispers in Jonelle's ear: "The key thing here is to get the child molester in jail. The ends justify the means on this one."

I'll admit ---- from my POV, I am smelling a bit of smoke here.
It took you this long?
 
It took you this long?

As I said in the post above --- everyone can change. I've always had an open mind.

But there is A LONG WAY to go as regards the things I'm most critical of as regards Joe Paterno. I mention JoePa because he's the character in this kerfuffle on which I seem to draw the most board cross-fire.

We're nowhere near dis-proving that JoePa knew about the 2001 investigation in 1998. We're nowhere near me saying JoePa was not a "moral failure" in 2001 as regards going to law enforcement.

(for the record - MM was a huge "moral failure" himself in 2001 in that regard too)
 
Last edited:


John Ziegler
This doesn't prove anything with regard to the email, but it gives Mcqueary an escape hatch that I feared but couldn't confirm.
 
Again, if the event was so traumatic it would be seared into memory. Time, date and location. You only look at calendars to back fill a cover story.
In addition, as JZ mentioned numerous times, everyone remembers before or after 9-11.
 
Ah, that's right. Thanks.

"Howard Stern" = Christopher Houser (not giving anything away there, his name's been in print). Yes, Baltimore cop. Also psudukie's real-life friend. :)
LINK: Mystery tip that broke Sandusky case

Then came the lucky break that may have saved the case.

On Nov. 3, 2010, the day after Corbett was elected governor, Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller received an e-mail. "Ms. Miller," it said:

"I am contacting you regarding the Jerry Sandusky investigation. If you have not yet done so, you need to contact and interview Penn State football assistant coach Mike McQueary. He may have witnessed something involving Jerry Sandusky and a child that would be pertinent to the investigation."

It was signed only "A Concerned Citizen."

The only information about this citizen supplied in the report comes in a footnote on page 62:

"According to the author of the e-mail, he had recently heard rumors that Sandusky was being investigated for child abuse and assumed that any such investigation would involve the Centre County District Attorney's Office. In addition, he had recently heard from a member of Michael McQueary's family that McQueary had firsthand information about Sandusky that would be relevant to such an investigation."

The tip broke the case wide open. A week later, investigators knocked on McQueary's door, and he agreed to cooperate. New resources were committed to the case. Subpoenas were issued. Evidence was assembled. And Sandusky was finally charged on Nov. 4, 2011 - 32 months after the investigation had been referred to the Attorney General's Office.

Who was the mystery man who seems to have rescued the prosecution? A March ESPN magazine story identified him as Christopher Houser. The magazine reported that during a chat on a Penn State football fan website, McQueary's older brother had told Houser that Sandusky, who had recently retired from his charity, would probably never coach again. And he revealed that his younger brother had caught Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower.
 
LINK: Mystery tip that broke Sandusky case

Then came the lucky break that may have saved the case.

On Nov. 3, 2010, the day after Corbett was elected governor, Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller received an e-mail. "Ms. Miller," it said:

"I am contacting you regarding the Jerry Sandusky investigation. If you have not yet done so, you need to contact and interview Penn State football assistant coach Mike McQueary. He may have witnessed something involving Jerry Sandusky and a child that would be pertinent to the investigation."

It was signed only "A Concerned Citizen."

The only information about this citizen supplied in the report comes in a footnote on page 62:

"According to the author of the e-mail, he had recently heard rumors that Sandusky was being investigated for child abuse and assumed that any such investigation would involve the Centre County District Attorney's Office. In addition, he had recently heard from a member of Michael McQueary's family that McQueary had firsthand information about Sandusky that would be relevant to such an investigation."

The tip broke the case wide open. A week later, investigators knocked on McQueary's door, and he agreed to cooperate. New resources were committed to the case. Subpoenas were issued. Evidence was assembled. And Sandusky was finally charged on Nov. 4, 2011 - 32 months after the investigation had been referred to the Attorney General's Office.

Who was the mystery man who seems to have rescued the prosecution? A March ESPN magazine story identified him as Christopher Houser. The magazine reported that during a chat on a Penn State football fan website, McQueary's older brother had told Houser that Sandusky, who had recently retired from his charity, would probably never coach again. And he revealed that his younger brother had caught Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower.
Playbook chats. MtNittany knew them well.
 
LINK: Mystery tip that broke Sandusky case

Then came the lucky break that may have saved the case.

On Nov. 3, 2010, the day after Corbett was elected governor, Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller received an e-mail. "Ms. Miller," it said:

"I am contacting you regarding the Jerry Sandusky investigation. If you have not yet done so, you need to contact and interview Penn State football assistant coach Mike McQueary. He may have witnessed something involving Jerry Sandusky and a child that would be pertinent to the investigation."

It was signed only "A Concerned Citizen."

The only information about this citizen supplied in the report comes in a footnote on page 62:

"According to the author of the e-mail, he had recently heard rumors that Sandusky was being investigated for child abuse and assumed that any such investigation would involve the Centre County District Attorney's Office. In addition, he had recently heard from a member of Michael McQueary's family that McQueary had firsthand information about Sandusky that would be relevant to such an investigation."

The tip broke the case wide open. A week later, investigators knocked on McQueary's door, and he agreed to cooperate. New resources were committed to the case. Subpoenas were issued. Evidence was assembled. And Sandusky was finally charged on Nov. 4, 2011 - 32 months after the investigation had been referred to the Attorney General's Office.

Who was the mystery man who seems to have rescued the prosecution? A March ESPN magazine story identified him as Christopher Houser. The magazine reported that during a chat on a Penn State football fan website, McQueary's older brother had told Houser that Sandusky, who had recently retired from his charity, would probably never coach again. And he revealed that his younger brother had caught Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower.
I wonder what Houser's cut of the $9.5 million will be.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT