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

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
I’m fine with another trial. Always have been. His defense seemed to be horrible and the court decisions seemed to be stacked against him. But I think when you start with the inexplicable showering activity and being found behind wrestling mats with another boy in an otherwise empty gym, you’ve got an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty.

The reason that Sandusky has an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty is because of the corruption of the prosecution. They poisoned the jury pool with the false grand jury presentation that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape and the illegal leaking of confidential grand jury information and other misconduct. The prosecution’s false narratives are prevalent in public opinion and it is a very heavy lift to get the cat back in the bag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capkrokus and Bob78

MacNit07

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2017
3,633
3,306
1
I could not agree more with the first two sentences. I think what I'm advocating is that bad judgement and stupidity does not warrant a life sentence. Our prisons are not big enough! LOL
What we have here, is a dirty prosecutor (suspended), a dirty judge (removed), at least some "victims" who are blatant liars.....etc. Police who perjured themselves during the trial..... I simply believe that Sandusky deserves another trial. Let's see everything in the light of day. If he's guilty....all fine and dandy.
Agree 1000%
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
Again, I say, guilty of what? Sodomy? He's already served almost 10 years, even if he's guilty of touching, groping etc. If he did those things, he should serve time....but there is a big difference between touching and sodomy.
Looking at what the impact was on PSU....do you think the national outrage was about a tickle monster? Or was it about a guy who stuck his junk in kids mouths and rear ends? I simply believe that it is a huge leap of faith to assume a man who showered with boys must have sodomized them. I believe that "victims" were coached by their money grubbing lawyers to claim dates of abuse, frequency of abuse and the nature of the abuse to maximize the financial settlements. Do you disagree? These are the stories that the media adopted and ran with.
Are you asking my opinion of how long prison sentences should be? I would say yes, somebody guilty of groping or sodomizing a child should be in jail for life. Nobody is groping a kid without the intent of having sex with them.
Marshall, I know you coached for a long time (I think you’ve mentioned here once or twice). Did you ever shower alone with a child and hold them up to the shower head to rinse off? If not, why not?
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
The reason that Sandusky has an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty is because of the corruption of the prosecution. They poisoned the jury pool with the false grand jury presentation that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape and the illegal leaking of confidential grand jury information and other misconduct. The prosecution’s false narratives are prevalent in public opinion and it is a very heavy lift to get the cat back in the bag.
They’re not mutually exclusive Franco. Jerry Sandusky showered alone with children, was investigated for it, agreed not to do it again (dispute it if you want, but it’s in the police report), then did it again. He was later found behind wrestling mats in an otherwise empty gym with another boy. Get rid of everything else, that creates a pretty solid image of a pedophile. Does it prove him to be guilty? Nope. Does it create a picture that has to be overcome and explained away logically? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ram2020 and Bob78

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
They’re not mutually exclusive Franco. Jerry Sandusky showered alone with children, was investigated for it, agreed not to do it again (dispute it if you want, but it’s in the police report), then did it again. He was later found behind wrestling mats in an otherwise empty gym with another boy. Get rid of everything else, that creates a pretty solid image of a pedophile. Does it prove him to be guilty? Nope. Does it create a picture that has to be overcome and explained away logically? Yes.
Yes, it is theoretically possible that the prosecution could be corrupt and that Jerry is still guilty. I will acknowledge that some of Sandusky's behaviors while not illegal by itself could be considered grooming and CSA if there was sexual intent. The problem I have is that I have seen zero credible evidence that there was sexual intent on Sandusky's part and there has been an over 10 year hunt for anything that demonstrates that Sandusky had a sexual proclivity for young boys. There is no pornography. There is a hypogonadism diagnosis. There is no indication of arousal when he was around children. Yes, there were 36 claimants who Penn State made settlements with, but Penn State gave away the store with virtually no vetting. Of the 36 claimants, there were none who made a contemporaneous report to a friend, family member, teacher, police, psychologist, clergy or anyone else. I understand that it only takes one instance of someone abusing a child for them to be guilty. I just don't believe that one instance happened with Jerry Sandusky. To convince me otherwise, you will need to provide specific evidence of that one instance. I have been asking for specifics for years and it just isn't there.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
Yes, it is theoretically possible that the prosecution could be corrupt and that Jerry is still guilty. I will acknowledge that some of Sandusky's behaviors while not illegal by itself could be considered grooming and CSA if there was sexual intent. The problem I have is that I have seen zero credible evidence that there was sexual intent on Sandusky's part and there has been an over 10 year hunt for anything that demonstrates that Sandusky had a sexual proclivity for young boys. There is no pornography. There is a hypogonadism diagnosis. There is no indication of arousal when he was around children. Yes, there were 36 claimants who Penn State made settlements with, but Penn State gave away the store with virtually no vetting. Of the 36 claimants, there were none who made a contemporaneous report to a friend, family member, teacher, police, psychologist, clergy or anyone else. I understand that it only takes one instance of someone abusing a child for them to be guilty. I just don't believe that one instance happened with Jerry Sandusky. To convince me otherwise, you will need to provide specific evidence of that one instance. I have been asking for specifics for years and it just isn't there.
I’m not interested in going through the whole again. We’ve both made our positions clear over the years. Answer this question for me though. I believe there were some people (specifically Dick Anderson I believe) that said they witnessed Sandusky shower with kids from his program over the years. Did any of these people indicate that they saw him have physical contact in the shower with them? Did they see him lift kids up to the shower head to rinse off so that their behinds were in his face? If not, you have to wonder why his shower behavior with children would be different when he was alone with kids then when he was with them with other adults around.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
I mean Scott has no reason to make that claim up. And Zig hates OJ passionately bc he dated Ron's sister.

If you have ever spoken to Zig about OJ you'd know it's easy to trigger him, and if you think he goes crazy on this case , you haven't seen anything.
Scott is a big unhinged.

It sounds like you speak to JZ frequently. Interesting....
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
I’m not interested in going through the whole again. We’ve both made our positions clear over the years. Answer this question for me though. I believe there were some people (specifically Dick Anderson I believe) that said they witnessed Sandusky shower with kids from his program over the years. Did any of these people indicate that they saw him have physical contact in the shower with them? Did they see him lift kids up to the shower head to rinse off so that their behinds were in his face? If not, you have to wonder why his shower behavior with children would be different when he was alone with kids then when he was with them with other adults around.
I am not interested in discussing with you Sandusky's showering behavior unless you can establish a factual basis that it was sexual. I am also not interested in asking Dick Anderson about Sandusky's showering habits, but be my guest if you so inclined.

It seems that you are not interested in talking about the facts of the case. Your opinions seem rooted in the media and prosecution narratives from 2011 - 2012. Have you learned any relevant new facts on the case since Sandusky's 2012 trial?

I have learned a ton and everything I have learned has supported the premise that Sandusky is innocent of the charges he was convicted of.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
agreed not to do it again (dispute it if you want, but it’s in the police report)

So you assume the reporting officer’s interpretation is accurate? Do you generally think police officers are infallible, or is your assumption case specific?
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
I am not interested in discussing with you Sandusky's showering behavior unless you can establish a factual basis that it was sexual. I am also not interested in asking Dick Anderson about Sandusky's showering habits, but be my guest if you so inclined.

It seems that you are not interested in talking about the facts of the case. Your opinions seem rooted in the media and prosecution narratives from 2011 - 2012. Have you learned any relevant new facts on the case since Sandusky's 2012 trial?

I have learned a ton and everything I have learned has supported the premise that Sandusky is innocent of the charges he was convicted of.
Jerry’s showering nonsense is a fact of the case. It is reasonable to think it was probably sexual because nobody that is not a pedophile would be in that situation-having physical contact with a child alone in a shower- after agreeing with police to never do so again. Nobody. It’s no more proof that he absolutely sexually abused kids than you have that he absolutely didn’t (with full acknowledgement that it’s difficult to prove a negative).
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
So you assume the reporting officer’s interpretation is accurate? Do you generally think police officers are infallible, or is your assumption case specific?
I know the report said Sandusky ageeed to never do it again (and in all honesty, it would be the only reasonable thing for him to say at that point. Why the hell would a grown man working with vulnerable youth shower alone and have physical contact with them? They wouldn’t, honestly) Are you assuming that the report is wrong?
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
I know the report said Sandusky ageeed to never do it again (and in all honesty, it would be the only reasonable thing for him to say at that point. Why the hell would a grown man working with vulnerable youth shower alone and have physical contact with them? They wouldn’t, honestly) Are you assuming that the report is wrong?
I'm not assuming anything, I think it's impossible to tell which version of the situation is correct from our point of view. But you believe the reporting officer's version, just curious if you know something I don't?
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
Jerry’s showering nonsense is a fact of the case. It is reasonable to think it was probably sexual because nobody that is not a pedophile would be in that situation-having physical contact with a child alone in a shower- after agreeing with police to never do so again. Nobody. It’s no more proof that he absolutely sexually abused kids than you have that he absolutely didn’t (with full acknowledgement that it’s difficult to prove a negative).
I was asking you for a factual basis for your opinions to no avail. I am done discusiing this with you.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
I'm not assuming anything, I think it's impossible to tell which version of the situation is correct from our point of view. But you believe the reporting officers version, just curious if you know something I don't?Sure, I believe the report that says Sandusky ageeed to never shower with kids sgain.
I'm not assuming anything, I think it's impossible to tell which version of the situation is correct from our point of view. But you believe the reporting officer's version, just curious if you know something I don't?
Sure, I believe Jerry agreed to never shower alone with kids again. Because, as I said above, anything other than that is unreasonable.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
I was asking you for a factual basis for your opinions to no avail. I am done discusiing this with you.
Fact: I don’t know one man that has ever showered alone with unrelated children and had physical contact with them. I’ve yet to see one person in here admit to doing so, though it’s been asked many times.
Fact: I know many men who have showered alone with women and had physical contact with them. 100% of them did so because they wanted to have sex with them.
Reasonable conclusion: Adults who shower alone with others and have physical contact with them do so for sexual purposes.
Have a great day Franco.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
You guys continue to go round and round with the same people who refuse or have no capacity to get it. I don’t know why you guys do this. Forget them. They aren’t worth anyone’s time when they never get it.
I agree Bob. Some people think it’s normal and innocent to shower alone with kids and have physical contact with them. It’s probably not worth the effort to point how abnormal this is.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
884
314
1
I know the report said Sandusky ageeed to never do it again (and in all honesty, it would be the only reasonable thing for him to say at that point. Why the hell would a grown man working with vulnerable youth shower alone and have physical contact with them? They wouldn’t, honestly) Are you assuming that the report is wrong
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual.
It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Dranov and others, however, that McQueary did not witness sodomy that night in February 2001. He thought something sexual was happening, but as he emphasized later, the entire episode lasted 30 to 45 seconds, he heard the sounds for only a few seconds, and his glance in the mirror was even quicker.
Ten years after the event, his memory had shifted and amplified, after the police told him that they had other Sandusky victims. Under that influence, his memory made the episode much more sexually graphic.
As I have written previously, all memory is reconstructive and is subject to distortion. That is particularly true when many years have intervened, and when current attitudes influence recall of those distant events. It is worthwhile quoting here from psychologist Daniel Reisberg’s 2014 book, The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.
“Connections between a specific memory and other, more generic knowledge can allow the other knowledge to intrude into our recollection,” Reiserberg notes. “Thus, a witness might remember the robber threatening violence merely because threats are part of the witness’s cognitive ‘schema’ for how robberies typically unfold.”
That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.
“As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”
In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”
On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.
“I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”
But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.
In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. “Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”
Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

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

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

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,347
6,281
1
The reason that Sandusky has an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty is because of the corruption of the prosecution. They poisoned the jury pool with the false grand jury presentation that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape and the illegal leaking of confidential grand jury information and other misconduct. The prosecution’s false narratives are prevalent in public opinion and it is a very heavy lift to get the cat back in the bag.
That corruption was obvious with respect to how Joe was treated and should have raised red flags with the press. That the media bought into the narrative, without challenging a thing, speaks volumes to how deep this goes.

This story was, IMO, the beginning of the cancel culture that's tearing this country apart.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,886
40,057
1
Baltimore, MD
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual.
It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Dranov and others, however, that McQueary did not witness sodomy that night in February 2001. He thought something sexual was happening, but as he emphasized later, the entire episode lasted 30 to 45 seconds, he heard the sounds for only a few seconds, and his glance in the mirror was even quicker.
Ten years after the event, his memory had shifted and amplified, after the police told him that they had other Sandusky victims. Under that influence, his memory made the episode much more sexually graphic.
As I have written previously, all memory is reconstructive and is subject to distortion. That is particularly true when many years have intervened, and when current attitudes influence recall of those distant events. It is worthwhile quoting here from psychologist Daniel Reisberg’s 2014 book, The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.
“Connections between a specific memory and other, more generic knowledge can allow the other knowledge to intrude into our recollection,” Reiserberg notes. “Thus, a witness might remember the robber threatening violence merely because threats are part of the witness’s cognitive ‘schema’ for how robberies typically unfold.”
That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.
“As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”
In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”
On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.
“I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”
But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.
In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. “Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”
Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

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

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

Wow, thats the first I heard that.
And if that is true it makes his action or lack there of even more cowardly.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,886
40,057
1
Baltimore, MD
That corruption was obvious with respect to how Joe was treated and should have raised red flags with the press. That the media bought into the narrative, without challenging a thing, speaks volumes to how deep this goes.

This story was, IMO, the beginning of the cancel culture that's tearing this country apart.

Possibly but I still think Tipper Gore and her zealot like crusade against the music industry was the start,
although the religious right has been at it forever.
 

lionville

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 23, 2005
4,277
4,370
1
"
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual."


Wow, thats the first I heard that.
And if that is true it makes his action or lack there of even more cowardly.
It's more likely McQuery had sex in the locker room with a female, and heard sounds that were familiar to him from his own experience. Hence his surprise when he didn't see one of the players with a female when he went into the shower area. JMHO.
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,333
6,951
1
I agree Bob. Some people think it’s normal and innocent to shower alone with kids and have physical contact with them. It’s probably not worth the effort to point how abnormal this is.
The police report I linked above was selectively leaked, it's missing pages. It certainly wasn't leaked to help the defense. But, the part still remains in Seasock's report that there was another coach present in '98. The "alone" part just isn't true for the '98 incident.

There's much more to the case than showering. You've told us your stance repeatedly on that topic for 8 years. What other aspects of the prosecution's case do you believe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
1,722
2,957
1
"
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual."

Wow, thats the first I heard that.
And if that is true it makes his action or lack there of even more cowardly.
I remember when this news was released. I think it was part of an ESPN/Don VanEtta (?) story about the incident and McQ. I think it was release leading in to McQ whistleblower suit.

Anyway, it was astonishing to me that media didn’t pursue this harder and ask follow-up questions.
Who abused you?
Why if you were abused didn’t you act more decisively in the locker room?
Why if you were abused, and traumatized by it, couldn’t you tell JoePa exactly what you saw?
Why if you were abused couldn’t you tell your own father and Dranov what you saw in the shower?


This alleged fact about McQ looks, smells, taste like a total crock of shit and further undermines the accuracy and credibility of anything he claims to know about the shower incident.
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,210
9,121
1
"
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual."


Wow, thats the first I heard that.
And if that is true it makes his action or lack there of even more cowardly.

I barely remember him making such a claim, but perhaps his claim of being abused was in almost knee-jerk reaction to the criticism leveled at him for not doing more than slamming his locker that night. It almost sounds like he was reaching for more rationale about why he did what he did that night, and I am not sure I would take any such claim in that context as being honest on face value. Of course, I could be wrong about that. But there was not much else made of it, either, given it was a pretty remarkable revelation from him. And I am not 100% sure that info is the result of a direct quote from McQ, or an interpretation on something he said by someone in the media.

Spanier also revealed that he was abused, via slapping and hitting, as a child iirc.

Bottom line, McQ did not react as though he was hell-bent on stopping an abusive situation that night. So, maybe it wasn't such a situation.

All this makes me more interested in what Ziegler's interviews tell us. There are solid, well-thought out arguments on both sides of JS's actions and role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,886
40,057
1
Baltimore, MD
It's more likely McQuery had sex in the locker room with a female, and heard sounds that were familiar to him from his own experience. Hence his surprise when he didn't see one of the players with a female when he went into the shower area. JMHO.

Well we know he likes to go fishing for them by sending them pics of his junk.🤮
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
Sure, I believe Jerry agreed to never shower alone with kids again. Because, as I said above, anything other than that is unreasonable.
That response makes it pretty clear that you've never even considered the version put forth by @francofan. Cleary, the quote from the police report is central to why you believe he is guilty:
I continue to believe he is guilty of crimes against children based upon his continued practice of having naked contact with unrelated children after agreeing to never do so again.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand why you think this way. I'm curious if you are using the fact that you think he is guilty as validation that the quote (which is a reason you think he is guilty) is accurate. That sort of circular logic happens fairly often in this case.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
That response makes it pretty clear that you've never even considered the version put forth by @francofan. Cleary, the quote from the police report is central to why you believe he is guilty:

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand why you think this way. I'm curious if you are using the fact that you think he is guilty as validation that the quote (which is a reason you think he is guilty) is accurate. That sort of circular logic happens fairly often in this case.
I think he is most likely guilty (I don’t know he is guilty anymore than others in here know he is innocent) because:
1. Nobody that works with children would get in a shower alone with a child they are working with and have physical contact with them. In fact, I can’t imagine an instance where it would even be OK to be naked with a child you are working with. This comes from 20+ years working with children as an adult, the vast majority of them working with underprivileged children.
2. If for some reason you didn’t know that you shouldn’t be showering with children you are working with, you sure as hell would know it after being investigated by the police for it. What would cause you to continue that practice? Just washing up certainly doesn’t cut it as a reason.
3. Sandusky followed some pretty textbook grooming tactics. Even some of his most ardent supporters in here have said that. If you agree that some of his actions can be labeled as “grooming” then you have to ask the logical question: What was he grooming them for?
Does this answer your question panda?
 
Last edited:

nits74

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2010
11,815
6,439
1
I remember when this news was released. I think it was part of an ESPN/Don VanEtta (?) story about the incident and McQ. I think it was release leading in to McQ whistleblower suit.

Anyway, it was astonishing to me that media didn’t pursue this harder and ask follow-up questions.
Who abused you?
Why if you were abused didn’t you act more decisively in the locker room?
Why if you were abused, and traumatized by it, couldn’t you tell JoePa exactly what you saw?
Why if you were abused couldn’t you tell your own father and Dranov what you saw in the shower?


This alleged fact about McQ looks, smells, taste like a total crock of shit and further undermines the accuracy and credibility of anything he claims to know about the shower incident.
Also, I think I recall during the height of all of this, some of those who knew him from State College indicated his propensity for lying. Anecdotal, of course.
 

dtrainers

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 23, 2009
752
145
1
Do we think that either Gary Shultz, Tim Curley or Fran Ganter will ever publish their stories and give their inside view on exactly what did and didn't happen?

I got the feeling that during their trials (excluding Ganter) that they just answered the questions they were given, and nothing more. But I also felt like there was more to each of their stories that went unsaid. Especially as it pertains to Joe's role (or lack there of).
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
Not at all. My question was very specifically, and I thought very clearly, about the accuracy of the quote from the police report.
I answered that earlier. I take that to be true because I have no reason to believe it’s not and it only makes sense that he would say that because anything else would be ridiculous.
As I’ve said all along, I’m open to changing my mind about the whole thing. If that quote is proven to not be true or embellished that would give me pause.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
Do we think that either Gary Shultz, Tim Curley or Fran Ganter will ever publish their stories and give their inside view on exactly what did and didn't happen?

I got the feeling that during their trials (excluding Ganter) that they just answered the questions they were given, and nothing more. But I also felt like there was more to each of their stories that went unsaid. Especially as it pertains to Joe's role (or lack there of).

I think Gary Schultz will tell his story on the new podcast. He was advertised in the trailer and Ziegler in the past has said the Schultz interview was one of the best interviews he has ever done.

Tim Curley will probably not publicly reveal his story. In his interview with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden as part of Snedden's federal investigation into whether or not Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances should be renewed, Curley politely declined to answer any questions about the scandal.

I have no idea about Fran Ganter, but would guess probably not if he hasn't yet said anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarasotan and Bob78

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,252
579
1
I barely remember him making such a claim, but perhaps his claim of being abused was in almost knee-jerk reaction to the criticism leveled at him for not doing more than slamming his locker that night. It almost sounds like he was reaching for more rationale about why he did what he did that night, and I am not sure I would take any such claim in that context as being honest on face value. Of course, I could be wrong about that. But there was not much else made of it, either, given it was a pretty remarkable revelation from him. And I am not 100% sure that info is the result of a direct quote from McQ, or an interpretation on something he said by someone in the media.

Spanier also revealed that he was abused, via slapping and hitting, as a child iirc.

Bottom line, McQ did not react as though he was hell-bent on stopping an abusive situation that night. So, maybe it wasn't such a situation.

All this makes me more interested in what Ziegler's interviews tell us. There are solid, well-thought out arguments on both sides of JS's actions and role.
he told that to the WRs he coached, in private. One or more of them told the press.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
Are you asking my opinion of how long prison sentences should be? I would say yes, somebody guilty of groping or sodomizing a child should be in jail for life. Nobody is groping a kid without the intent of having sex with them.
Marshall, I know you coached for a long time (I think you’ve mentioned here once or twice). Did you ever shower alone with a child and hold them up to the shower head to rinse off? If not, why not?
No I did not. I find that to be very strange behavior. But at the same time, that does not mean if I had done that, I am guilty of sodomizing a child.