With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,753
4,401
1
Episode 8 "Known Only to God" has dropped.

In episode eight we learn about "the boy in the shower" from the Mike McQueary episode. His name never went public and prosecutors were intent on making sure his story never did either. His story, had it been told, would have dramatically changed the course of history. Maybe it's not too late!

 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,150
6,267
1
I believe the issue with this as far as Joe and PSU is concerned is it is near impossible to clear him of which he's being accused. In many ways, it's actually a lot easier to prove Sandusky is innocent then to prove Joe wasn't complicit in a cover up, or at the very least, guilty of "not doing enough". It's interesting, because Scott briefly touches on it in the call with Zig. Says something to the effect of, it doesn't really matter what Mike saw, it's what he thought he saw or what people thought he saw/told Joe. Zig could make it his lifes work to prove Jerry's innocence, and even if it was proven in a court of law Sandusky was the victim of witness tampering and a completely created narrative that lead to his imprisonment, people could still say Joe didn't know that when he acted in the way he did.

I think the only thing that could ever turn public perception when it comes to Joe would be for MM to come forward and admit to a lot of things. Some of his own lies, admit he was pressured by police to change or exaggerate his story etc. Even then, not enough people would care to move the needle, and even they did it wouldn't move the needle enough to restore Joe's legacy in any way. At least not back to where it should be.

As far as sandusky goes I've run the spectrum. I went from he's definitely guilty as hell, to he's probably a pedophile but didn't really act on it in any major way, to he might just be goofy and quite frankly not all that smart.

Forget the fact that the lack of actual victims is troubling. I mean the fact that 2 of the victims were based on stories from 2nd and 3rd parties in a trial was always strange, and add that to the fact even half of the "victims" willing to come forward didn't describe anything resembling a sexual assault and it all just seems strange.

I think the most telling thing for me is that he has no victims going way back. Are we to believe the man became a pedophile in his late 50s? The lack of pornography is also a huge red flag.
that is a very good post but I disagree vis a vis Paterno.
MM already has stated he was very vague with Joe. I take that to believe he was more vague with Joe than with his father or Dranov or Tim and Gary. Fair enough? Based on those other conversations that is pretty damn vague.
Joe hears from Mike. He knows JS was investigated in 1998 [my opinion] and WAS CLEARED.
JS is 2 years gone and is really the problem for TSM.
At this point is it more logical to think this is 1998 all over again OR that the police and everyone made a mistake in 1998 and this is a huge red flag.
Despite this Joe does what he should have done. He turns it over to Tim. [who also likely knew more about 1998]
The story will never get retold but I think it is/would be very easy to explain Joe's behavior. [especially if it ever came to light that JS behavior was greatly exaggerated]
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,884
26,887
1
that is a very good post but I disagree vis a vis Paterno.
MM already has stated he was very vague with Joe. I take that to believe he was more vague with Joe than with his father or Dranov or Tim and Gary. Fair enough? Based on those other conversations that is pretty damn vague.
Joe hears from Mike. He knows JS was investigated in 1998 [my opinion] and WAS CLEARED.
JS is 2 years gone and is really the problem for TSM.
At this point is it more logical to think this is 1998 all over again OR that the police and everyone made a mistake in 1998 and this is a huge red flag.
Despite this Joe does what he should have done. He turns it over to Tim. [who also likely knew more about 1998]
The story will never get retold but I think it is/would be very easy to explain Joe's behavior. [especially if it ever came to light that JS behavior was greatly exaggerated]
McQueary's dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all said that Mike didn't tell them about anything sexual. That's 5 out of 5.

IMO it's ridiculous to believe McQueary's dad & Dranov but not believe Joe, Curley, and Shultz.
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,125
8,911
1
Pisses me off - yet again - that Gary is now being subjected to a new article of criticism and rallying people to rail against him getting his pension. Gary is a very good man, and deserves none of the crap that has been thrown at him since 2011. Same for Tim. Their well-earned pensions don't make up for all they have been through.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
851
300
1
that is a very good post but I disagree vis a vis Paterno.
MM already has stated he was very vague with Joe. I take that to believe he was more vague with Joe than with his father or Dranov or Tim and Gary. Fair enough? Based on those other conversations that is pretty damn vague.
Joe hears from Mike. He knows JS was investigated in 1998 [my opinion] and WAS CLEARED.
JS is 2 years gone and is really the problem for TSM.
At this point is it more logical to think this is 1998 all over again OR that the police and everyone made a mistake in 1998 and this is a huge red flag.
Despite this Joe does what he should have done. He turns it over to Tim. [who also likely knew more about 1998]
The story will never get retold but I think it is/would be very easy to explain Joe's behavior. [especially if it ever came to light that JS behavior was greatly exaggerated]
MM never was it.

On March 21st, Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka asked McQueary when he first heard that Jerry Sandusky was going to get arrested. Sandusky is the retired coach that McQueary allegedly saw naked in the Penn State showers with a boy.

It was during a bye week in the 2011 football season, McQueary told Ditka.

"I was on my way to Boston for recruiting and I was going from the F terminal over to the B terminals over in Philadelphia Airport," McQueary said. "And there was one of those little trams. The AGs called," he said, specifically naming Assistant Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach. And, according to McQueary, Eshbach "said we're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

Then, McQueary, perhaps catching himself, said, "Let me back up a little bit. We heard rumors that I had heard that -- the week before that arrests were imminent and that it was going to be more than Jerry Sandusky."

The state Attorney General's office has a known problem with leaks. Former state Attorney General Kathleen Kane lost her job after she was convicted last August of nine criminal charges, including leaking "confidential investigative information" in 2014 from a past grand jury probe to Chris Brennan, then a Philadelphia Daily News reporter.

Kane had to resign from her job and was sentenced to 10 to 23 months in jail after she was convicted of perjury, conspiracy, leaking grand jury information and then lying about it, to cover it up.

In the Jerry Sandusky case, prosecutors testified at a post-trial hearing last August that they had no knowledge of how the media found out that Sandusky and others in the Penn State scandal were about to be arrested. And how the media knew that there was a grand jury investigation of Sandusky in progress.

"If we can establish there were leaks by government agents, it could result in dismissal of case," Al Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, told reporters after the appeals hearing last August.

When reached for comment late today, Lindsay was on the case.

"We received a portion of that transcript from Mike McQueary," Lindsay said. "And it's certainly something we're studying to see whether or not it might be a fertile field for us to develop with regard to Mr. Sandusky's motion for a new trial," Lindsay said on behalf of client, now serving 30 to 60 years in prison.

A spokesperson for the state Attorney General's press office, where they're known for hiding under their desks, did not respond to a request for comment.

On the witness stand at the Spanier trial last month, McQueary testified that immediately after the AG's office told him they were going to leak news of the impending arrests, he ran over to the office of Assistant Athletic Director Fran Ganter.

"I remember it clearly," McQueary testified. "And I said, you gotta call Timmy's. Those guys are in trouble."

"Tim Curley," Ditka asked, referring to the former athletic director at Penn State.

"Yeah," McQueary testified. "And, you know, he kind of passed it off or shrugged me off," McQueary said about Ganter. "I'm not sure they believed me. And that's all that happened with that."

"So, a week later, I'm in that airport and I get a call," McQueary testified. "And then the media starts gettin' ahold of everything, and it's all kind of downhill after that."

Amen, brother.

When McQueary testified about the AG planning to "leak it out," I was in the courtroom but did not grasp the significance of what McQueary said. I had to have others explain it to me. And then it took a while to get the court transcript via a money order sent out snail mail to the Dauphin County Courthouse, to verify what McQueary had to say.

But Penn State veterans got it right away. Like Maribeth Roman Schmidt, the head of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship.

"Mike's assertion under oath that the AGs leaked information about the PSU admins' arrests confirms suspicions we've had all along about prosecutorial misconduct on a number of levels," she said.

"It's now exceedingly obvious that the Attorney General was trying to manipulate public perception of the Penn State case from the very beginning, and they were willing to commit a crime to do it."

"This bombshell places the integrity of the entire Penn State case squarely at the feet of [newly elected AG] Josh Shapiro," Schmidt said about the new Attorney General who's yet to come out of hiding.

"If he's serious about restoring confidence in the AG's office," Schmidt said, "There is no other place for him to start than reviewing the conduct of prosecutors in this case from top to bottom."

Ray Blehar, who writes a blog, notpsu.blogspot.com, first reported the McQueary admission on March 25th, after he was tipped by Schmidt, who called it the "shocker of the day."

"McQueary Becomes Real Whistleblower," was Blehar's headline. In his blog post, Blehar quoted a transcript from McQueary's whistleblower and libel suit against Penn State, where McQueary scored a total of $12 million.

In the transcript from the McQueary trial, McQueary recounts how he was traveling to Boston, from Philadelphia Airport terminal B. It was Friday Nov. 4th after the Illinois game. McQueary testified how he got a phone call from then Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach.

"And she said a screw up had occurred or some kind of leak or a computer system malfunction, and she said all of the charges are going to be released," McQueary testified.

"However, it appears that McQueary's testimony at the Spanier trial goes a step further to state that Eshbach intentionally leaked the information," Blehar wrote.

"For years, Penn Staters have complained about the lack of an investigation into the leaks related to Jerry Sandusky," Blehar wrote. "Now, AG Josh Shapiro has the name of at least one of the Sandusky leakers. And it came from the Commonwealth's star witness in the Sandusky and Spanier cases."

Blehar called for Eshbach to be prosecuted "just as vigorously as former AG Kathleen Kane."

Eschbach, now running for York County District Attorney, did not respond to a request for comment.

For reporter John Ziegler, another regular chronicler of the Penn State scandal, the McQueary admission at the Spanier trial shines some light on a bigger picture.

"Anyone who uses his brain can only interpret this statement as an accidental admission that, just as I have long assumed, the AG's office prematurely leaked the grand jury presentment so that their favorite reporter, Sara Ganim, could 'find' it and start to set their false narrative," Ziegler said.

"Once you realize this is true, you must then also conclude that the entire basis of Ganim's article from March of that year revealing the existence of the grand jury was illegal AG leaks intended to jumpstart a case that was extremely weak because they had no credible accusers."

Related: Ziegler responds to those who want to get him fired.

Blehar: Is Frank Fina facing a perjury rap?
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
that is a very good post but I disagree vis a vis Paterno.
MM already has stated he was very vague with Joe. I take that to believe he was more vague with Joe than with his father or Dranov or Tim and Gary. Fair enough? Based on those other conversations that is pretty damn vague.
Joe hears from Mike. He knows JS was investigated in 1998 [my opinion] and WAS CLEARED.
JS is 2 years gone and is really the problem for TSM.
At this point is it more logical to think this is 1998 all over again OR that the police and everyone made a mistake in 1998 and this is a huge red flag.
Despite this Joe does what he should have done. He turns it over to Tim. [who also likely knew more about 1998]
The story will never get retold but I think it is/would be very easy to explain Joe's behavior. [especially if it ever came to light that JS behavior was greatly exaggerated]
I know I keep going back to the notes and emails, but I think they're important with respect to Joe. Tim wrote:

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

Not only does Tim say "I" five times. He never says "Joe is uncomfortable", or "we are uncomfortable". It's "I am uncomfortable", and "I am having trouble..."

However, the most important word in this email is "everyone". The narrative suggests, based only on these emails, that following Tim's discussion with Joe, he convinced S/S not to report what happened. That interpretation is incorrect. He was not excluding the others, but simply suggesting that Sandusky should also be included among those told.

Had Tim said, "I am having trouble going to anyone, but the person involved", the narrative would be correct. That would suggest Tim felt it was best to inform Sandusky, but no one else. That's not what he says. In fact, what he says means just the opposite. It means that Tim was uncomfortable telling the others what had been reported without also telling Sandusky.

I believe had that one sentence been interpreted accurately, Joe's reputation would be intact to this day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,240
24,240
1
I know I keep going back to the notes and emails, but I think they're important with respect to Joe. Tim wrote:

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

Not only does Tim say "I" five times. He never says "Joe is uncomfortable", or "we are uncomfortable". It's "I am uncomfortable", and "I am having trouble..."

However, the most important word in this email is "everyone". The narrative suggests, based only on these emails, that following Tim's discussion with Joe, he convinced S/S not to report what happened. That interpretation is incorrect. He was not excluding the others, but simply suggesting that Sandusky should also be included among those told.

Had Tim said, "I am having trouble going to anyone, but the person involved", the narrative would be correct. That would suggest Tim felt it was best to inform Sandusky, but no one else. That's not what he says. In fact, what he says means just the opposite. It means that Tim was uncomfortable telling the others what had been reported without also telling Sandusky.

I believe had that one sentence been interpreted accurately, Joe's reputation would be intact to this day.
reading comprehension is a skill....and the masses are asses....that pretty much explains this whole saga.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
I know I keep going back to the notes and emails, but I think they're important with respect to Joe. Tim wrote:

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

Not only does Tim say "I" five times. He never says "Joe is uncomfortable", or "we are uncomfortable". It's "I am uncomfortable", and "I am having trouble..."

However, the most important word in this email is "everyone". The narrative suggests, based only on these emails, that following Tim's discussion with Joe, he convinced S/S not to report what happened. That interpretation is incorrect. He was not excluding the others, but simply suggesting that Sandusky should also be included among those told.

Had Tim said, "I am having trouble going to anyone, but the person involved", the narrative would be correct. That would suggest Tim felt it was best to inform Sandusky, but no one else. That's not what he says. In fact, what he says means just the opposite. It means that Tim was uncomfortable telling the others what had been reported without also telling Sandusky.

I believe had that one sentence been interpreted accurately, Joe's reputation would be intact to this day.
That was a line clung to by people who wanted to make Joe a villain. In reality though, there was reason for Curley to be speaking to Joe about it at all beyond the initial conversation. Is that what this is referring to or was this Curley going back to Joe after the initial report? I can’t remember how it unfolded.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
That was a line clung to by people who wanted to make Joe a villain. In reality though, there was reason for Curley to be speaking to Joe about it at all beyond the initial conversation. Is that what this is referring to or was this Curley going back to Joe after the initial report? I can’t remember how it unfolded.
This was Curley going back to Joe after Tim and Gary had met with MM, and along with Spanier, were trying to determine how best to address the situation.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
OK. Really, Joe should not have been involved with that at all, from my point of view.
I would agree with you had MM reported an incident of CSA. Since that's not what occurred, I don't see the problem. Consider Spanier's response:

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

1) Spanier takes responsibility. This is the end of the story as far as Joe is concerned.

2) This confirms that what Tim proposed was not eliminating any of the steps originally discussed, but was adding an additional step.

3) He praises Tim for his willingness to have an uncomfortable conversation with Jerry and he terms the proposal as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed". Hardly what you would expect regarding an incident that could blow up in their face.

4) I believe the "only downside" sentence is completely misinterpreted. Rather than how it is portrayed in Freeh's narrative, it proves that they weren't dealing with a report of CSA by citing an if/then scenario. In other words, how would they not have been "vulnerable" as long as Jerry took their message to heart if there was an abused child involved? That makes no sense. It wouldn't matter in the least what Jerry did or did not do in the future if what he did in the past involved the sexual abuse of a child. The possibility that AM would go to the authorities would have left them vulnerable forever, regardless of Jerry's future actions.

This was about preventing a future he said/he said scenario, similar to '98, not concealing a crime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blk902 and Bob78

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
I would agree with you had MM reported an incident of CSA. Since that's not what occurred, I don't see the problem. Consider Spanier's response:

This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

1) Spanier takes responsibility. This is the end of the story as far as Joe is concerned.

2) This confirms that what Tim proposed was not eliminating any of the steps originally discussed, but was adding an additional step.

3) He praises Tim for his willingness to have an uncomfortable conversation with Jerry and he terms the proposal as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed". Hardly what you would expect regarding an incident that could blow up in their face.

4) I believe the "only downside" sentence is completely misinterpreted. Rather than how it is portrayed in Freeh's narrative, it proves that they weren't dealing with a report of CSA by citing an if/then scenario. In other words, how would they not have been "vulnerable" as long as Jerry takes their message to heart if there was an abused child involved? That makes no sense. It wouldn't matter in the least what Jerry did or did not do in the future if what he did in the past involved the sexual abuse of a child. The possibility that AM would go to the authorities would have left them vulnerable forever, regardless of Jerry's future actions.

This was about preventing a future he said/he said scenario, similar to '98, not concealing a crime.
But Sandusky was an ex-assistant coach of Joe’s. No reason for Curley to have involved him after the initial conversation. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, it just put Joe in a spot he didn’t need to be in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
But Sandusky was an ex-assistant coach of Joe’s. No reason for Curley to have involved him after the initial conversation. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, it just put Joe in a spot he didn’t need to be in.
I get that. My point would be that if MM had told Tim and Gary of sexual abuse, there would have been nothing to discuss. I think Tim wanted to circle back with Joe after they met with MM to compare notes. I also know how close Tim and Joe were. He valued Joe's counsel. What I'm arguing is that what Tim proposed after talking with Joe has been misinterpreted.

My argument has always been that if the notes and emails are read from the perspective that Tim and Gary testified truthfully to the grand jury they make perfect sense, but make no sense at all if their intent was to conceal a reported crime.

Let me give you one more example. After their initial meeting with Joe and before even meeting with MM, Schultz wrote:

-Talked w TMC, reviewed 1998 history

-agreed TMC will discuss with JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/JS on Friday

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare

Think about what that last point actually means. If Jerry won't admit he has a problem, they'll have to report him to DPW. However, if he does admit it, they won't have to report to DPW. That's completely backwards if, by problem, we're talking about pedophilia. The only way it makes sense is if, by problem, we're talking about boundary issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

lionspride2107

New Member
Silver Member
May 5, 2021
4
6
1
that is a very good post but I disagree vis a vis Paterno.
MM already has stated he was very vague with Joe. I take that to believe he was more vague with Joe than with his father or Dranov or Tim and Gary. Fair enough? Based on those other conversations that is pretty damn vague.
Joe hears from Mike. He knows JS was investigated in 1998 [my opinion] and WAS CLEARED.
JS is 2 years gone and is really the problem for TSM.
At this point is it more logical to think this is 1998 all over again OR that the police and everyone made a mistake in 1998 and this is a huge red flag.
Despite this Joe does what he should have done. He turns it over to Tim. [who also likely knew more about 1998]
The story will never get retold but I think it is/would be very easy to explain Joe's behavior. [especially if it ever came to light that JS behavior was greatly exaggerated]
I think you're sorta missing my point. I'm not saying Joe's behavior can't be explained. I was pointing to the narrative and Joe's legacy. Effectively, it would take some earth shattering bombshell to get people to look at this, and even then, I feel like you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Even if some huge bombshell dropped, Sandusky is innocent, gets released, MM admits he was manipulated, I don't see all of a sudden PSU putting the statue back up. I don't think you'll hear announcers during games speak of him fondly etc.
 
Last edited:

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
I get that. My point would be that if MM had told Tim and Gary of sexual abuse, there would have been nothing to discuss. I think Tim wanted to circle back with Joe after they met with MM to compare notes. I also know how close Tim and Joe were. He valued Joe's counsel. What I'm arguing is that what Tim proposed after talking with Joe has been misinterpreted.

My argument has always been that if the notes and emails are read from the perspective that Tim and Gary testified truthfully to the grand jury they make perfect sense, but make no sense at all if their intent was to conceal a reported crime.

Let me give you one more example. After their initial meeting with Joe and before even meeting with MM, Schultz wrote:

-Talked w TMC, reviewed 1998 history

-agreed TMC will discuss with JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/JS on Friday

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare

Think about what that last point actually means. If Jerry won't admit he has a problem, they'll have to report him to DPW. However, if he does admit it, they won't have to report to DPW. That's completely backwards if, by problem, we're talking about pedophilia. The only way it makes sense is if, by problem, we're talking about boundary issues.
Not a huge thing but I don’t think he should have circled back to Joe. Not to compare notes, not for advice, not for suggestions. He was being paid an nice salary and this was his thing to handle, not Joe’s. Joe did his part and shared the information with Curley. That should have been the end of it. Do you think Curley would have circled back to Joe if Joe reported the same information about another person not previously related to the football team? I’m guessing not. Again, not a huge deal and not something that should have gotten any of these people crucified but something that I don’t think should have occurred.
 
Last edited:

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,220
6,665
1
Not a huge thing but I don’t think he should have circled back to Joe. Not to compare notes, not for advice, not for suggestions. He was being paid an nice salary and this was his thing to handle, not Joe’s. Joe did his part and shared the information with Curley. That should have been the end of it. Do you think Curley would have circled back to Joe if Joe reported the same information about another person not previously related to the football team? I’m guessing not. Again, not a huge deal and not something that should have gotten any of these people crucified but something that I don’t think should have occurred.
It wasn't that simple. MM was a whistleblower and employed as a GA by the university. He might have even formally been a job applicant at that point. Someone should be counseling the manager/hiring manager on the intricacies of the whistleblower's protections.

This whole thing is much more complex than the media can handle.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,240
24,240
1
Not a huge thing but I don’t think he should have circled back to Joe. Not to compare notes, not for advice, not for suggestions. He was being paid an nice salary and this was his thing to handle, not Joe’s. Joe did his part and shared the information with Curley. That should have been the end of it. Do you think Curley would have circled back to Joe if Joe reported the same information about another person not previously related to the football team? I’m guessing not. Again, not a huge deal and not something that should have gotten any of these people crucified but something that I don’t think should have occurred.
When you work together in an institution you build relationships over a period of years. Tim had/has great respect for Joe's insight and wisdom. Sometimes when in a difficult situation you like to bounce things off of people that you know will be honest and forthright in their opinions and assessments. I think that is all this was.
You are correct if you drew this situation up on a blackboard. But it involved people Joe had a great deal of experience with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
It wasn't that simple. MM was a whistleblower and employed as a GA by the university. He might have even formally been a job applicant at that point. Someone should be counseling the manager/hiring manager on the intricacies of the whistleblower's protections.

This whole thing is much more complex than the media can handle.
What does that have to do with Curley circling back to discuss Sandusky with Joe? I could see him coming back to him to discuss the situation as far as it involves his GA.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
When you work together in an institution you build relationships over a period of years. Tim had/has great respect for Joe's insight and wisdom. Sometimes when in a difficult situation you like to bounce things off of people that you know will be honest and forthright in their opinions and assessments. I think that is all this was.
You are correct if you drew this situation up on a blackboard. But it involved people Joe had a great deal of experience with.
I get that. But this not a subject that should have been discussed with anybody other than those that absolutely needed to be involved with it. In my opinion at least.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
851
300
1
I get that. My point would be that if MM had told Tim and Gary of sexual abuse, there would have been nothing to discuss. I think Tim wanted to circle back with Joe after they met with MM to compare notes. I also know how close Tim and Joe were. He valued Joe's counsel. What I'm arguing is that what Tim proposed after talking with Joe has been misinterpreted.

My argument has always been that if the notes and emails are read from the perspective that Tim and Gary testified truthfully to the grand jury they make perfect sense, but make no sense at all if their intent was to conceal a reported crime.

Let me give you one more example. After their initial meeting with Joe and before even meeting with MM, Schultz wrote:

-Talked w TMC, reviewed 1998 history

-agreed TMC will discuss with JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/JS on Friday

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare

Think about what that last point actually means. If Jerry won't admit he has a problem, they'll have to report him to DPW. However, if he does admit it, they won't have to report to DPW. That's completely backwards if, by problem, we're talking about pedophilia. The only way it makes sense is if, by problem, we're talking about boundary issues.
Except -
deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was trying to calm Mike McQueary, her distraught star whistle-blower.

McQueary had emailed Eshbach earlier that day to tell her that the grand jury report that told the world that McQueary had witnessed a naked Sandusky in the Penn State showers having anal intercourse with a 10-year-old boy was wrong. In that same email, McQueary complained to the A.G.'s office that they had "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" that he had actually seen or heard in the showers.

Now there's a star witness you can have confidence in.

In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But 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.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
98,806
40,874
1
It wasn't that simple. MM was a whistleblower and employed as a GA by the university. He might have even formally been a job applicant at that point. Someone should be counseling the manager/hiring manager on the intricacies of the whistleblower's protections.

This whole thing is much more complex than the media can handle.
first, I am unsure of the protections circa 2002 The catholic priest scandal only blew up the spring of 2002 with the Boston Globe article.

Second, because MM didn't report it to Joe until at least the next morning, there was nothing Joe could do except hand it to the school (JS was not an employee and MM watered down the description). Curley and Schulz could only ask JS for the boy's name (who didn't corroborate the story) and MM said he never really directly saw anything wrong. It was the MM testimony COMBINED with a dozen kids saying JS molested them that got him convicted. That boy in the shower has never been identified and never filed charges/claims.

In fact, after researching for several years, the NCAA guidelines are to do exactly what JVP did: report it to authorities outside of the sports reporting verticle (To Schultz, who was in charge of campus police).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
Except -
deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was trying to calm Mike McQueary, her distraught star whistle-blower.

McQueary had emailed Eshbach earlier that day to tell her that the grand jury report that told the world that McQueary had witnessed a naked Sandusky in the Penn State showers having anal intercourse with a 10-year-old boy was wrong. In that same email, McQueary complained to the A.G.'s office that they had "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" that he had actually seen or heard in the showers.

Now there's a star witness you can have confidence in.

In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But 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.
Isn't it typical of this case that the prosecution told Mike to keep his mouth shut, but C/S/S/P never did?
 

Latest posts