Don Van Natta, Jr.'s
latest article, The Whistleblower's Last Stand, missed the bigger stories on
McQueary's gambling
By
Ray Blehar
As someone who does a
lot of writing, it's very easy to get tunnel vision when putting a story
together. I may start a story with a particular focus, but as I'm writing
and the story unfolds a new focus emerges.
Don Van Natta Jr. worked
3 to 4 months on a story about Mike McQueary that was to shed light on his
character and, perhaps cause the public to question the veracity of his
testimony. Van Natta's tunnel vision on that part of the story caused him
to miss what is the bigger story of the evidence he uncovered -- Mike
McQueary's gambling, who knew about it, and its possible impact.
The story of McQueary's
gambling was not news to me. I had learned about it early in my
investigation and, in fact, tweeted about it in June 2013, noting that it could
have been used as leverage by the OAG.
Under the NCAA rules, McQueary could have been ruled as an ineligible player for gambling and, with that ruling, would come the
potential for the NCAA to vacate PSU wins in games in which he participated.
Similarly, coaches are also forbidden from gambling on sports, thus if it
was revealed Mike gambled as a PSU assistant, it could have ended his
coaching career.
Leverage? You bet.
Did the OAG know of
McQueary's gambling?
I don't have definitive,
smoking gun evidence of that fact.
But if they did know, would that not
be information that should have been provided to defense counsel as discovery? And would that information have been used by the defense counsel in an attempt to impeach McQueary's credibility as a witness in the Sandusky case?
Erickson and Others at PSU Knew
 |
| Erickson: Told about McQueary's gambling |
Gambling can become a
problem and, according to information uncovered in my investigation, PSU
President Rodney Erickson was informed of McQueary's "gambling debt"
on or about January 2012, which coincides with the time frame of Louis Freeh's
investigation.
Evidence also indicates that McQueary's gambling was known
by "secretaries" in the athletic department.
Obviously, it then
becomes possible that PSU could have used his gambling issue to leverage Mike to stick to his story on
telling Joe the incident was sexual in nature. Let's face it; the school
had just fired an iconic coach based on the grand jury presentment that hinged
on McQueary's testimony. They needed to justify the firing and they needed Mike to stick to his guns on what he told Joe.
This brings up some other interesting possibilities.
Did PSU promise Mike a
coaching position with the new staff?
Did they
renege on the promise?
Did their reneging give rise to Mike's
whistleblower lawsuit?
All interesting
questions that only PSU and Mike might answer. And we might get those answers
during the Paterno v. NCAA lawsuit.
However, a couple other questions arise here....
Were there more violations than McQueary's gambling?
Was signing the consent decree to avoid an NCAA investigation?
However, a couple other questions arise here....
Were there more violations than McQueary's gambling?
Was signing the consent decree to avoid an NCAA investigation?
After Van Natta "broke the story" of McQueary's gambling, many asked how or why Louis Freeh didn't learn this in his $8.8 million dollar investigation. Or perhaps he learned it, but covered it up also.
The Freeh Investigation
As reported on this blog
many times, Louis Freeh was identified and recommended for the PSU
investigation by Governor Tom Corbett, who commented:
 |
| Governor Corbett |
"And I think one of the reasons that someone
like Mr. Freeh was appointed is because he understands the role of a grand jury
investigation, the role of the prosecutors and will work well with the attorney
general's office and Attorney General Linda Kelly so that [obstruction of the
attorney general's investigation] does not happen."
The words could not be plainer
-- Freeh was not to do anything that would obstruct or undermine the
prosecution of Sandusky or the ongoing investigation of PSU's two
administrators (Curley and Schultz).
 |
| Kenneth Frazier |
The public was assured by PSU
BOT member Kenneth Frazier that Penn State would fully cooperate with
"Judge Freeh's" investigation, stating:
"No one is above scrutiny. He has complete rein to follow any lead, to look into every corner of the university to get to the bottom of what happened and then to make recommendations that will help ensure that it never happens again."
If Frazier was being honest,
then we have to believe that Erickson would have informed Freeh about
McQueary's gambling.
And if Freeh learned of
McQueary's gambling issue, why didn't that get mentioned in his report?
McQueary was the pivotal witness in the takedown of Paterno and the PSU
administrators. Are we to believe that Freeh, a former prosecutor, wouldn't
consider McQueary's gambling issue to be significant to assess the reliability
of his testimony, given what was at stake if that information became public
knowledge? Why did Freeh leave that fact out if he knew?
Was the Commonwealth's star witness above scrutiny?
Was the Commonwealth's star witness above scrutiny?
Freeh needs to come to PSU and answer some hard questions. If he ducks coming to PSU to answer the questions, then we'll have to wait until the Paterno and/or Spanier lawsuit to find out what Freeh knew.
Conclusion
The gambling will surely be used against McQueary in his whistleblower suit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't see how the NCAA would care, and if they did, it'd be a minor violation at best.
Gambling can be a pretty wide net and would have expanded the scope of any NCAA investigation. I'm guessing lots more people wouldn't be "comfortable" if the subject of gambling was thrown in the mix.
DeleteWell well well - this certainly makes puzzle pieces fit together much better! I thought that piece on McQuery was a total fluff piece when reading it. And I knew media would focus on the "he said he was abused too" part - which was second hand, unconfirmed hearsay about someone that can't tell a consistent story. The focus should have been here - holy cow!
ReplyDeleteI think this article again brings to light the need for Louis Freeh to be answer questions - on and off the witness stand. To still not do so is egregious from the BOT - unless of course they're hiding something.
ReplyDeleteBy not saying anything about anything would you not assume that they were hiding something? I think the people on the B were lead down a one way street with no possible return by a small group that needs to be removed. It's always easier to admitt, years later that you made a mistake but now the question is," how are you going to change the outcome"?
DeleteToo ironic that Pete Rose and his issues with gambling on his own team are in the news NOW.
ReplyDelete"POSTED MARCH 05, 2014
Pete Rose hits the cover of the March 10 issue of Sports Illustrated"
So with McQueary, who knew what and when??
John's father knew amongst others. He also knew that if Paterno got wind of it, McQueary would be history. Two players in MM's receivers meeting evidently take issue with the abuse statement that was reported by VanNatta. Didn't happen like that, they say. VanNatta also made a snarky reference to the email CC'd to Spanier in 1998 and didn't state that Spanier was in Europe and probably never read it.
ReplyDeleteVanNatta states that he has phone records detailing the exact time that McQueary sent images of his genitalia to PSU coeds. But he says that incident was not germane to the article. What??? He does this incredible piece of investigative journalism, and it gets inviscerated by ESPN editors?
I've often asked what MM thinks he blew the whistle on. I'll be damned if he didn't blow it on himself!
Gregory,
DeleteVery good points.
However, I think the bigger issues here are that Erickson knew and that Freeh didn't report any of it in his report. Freeh was carrying water for Corbett during this investigation and he wasn't going to do anything that put the case in jeopardy....
Like reporting there were no obstructions in the shower room to block the upper bodies of Victim 8 and Sandusky.
Like reporting that the star witness had gambling issues and other problems that might be used to impeach his credibility.
Both of these incidents were alleged to have occurred on PSU's campus and were described in the most heinous of ways. No way was Freeh going to throw them into doubt.
This could go a long way in understand how the OAG might have coerced MM into silent acceptance of the words attributed to MM in the Presentment - the words that damned PSU and Joe Paterno to public revulsion and gave Surma and Corbett all the ammunition they required to unleash the blitz on the unsuspecting BOT that ended in a unanimous consent to fire JVP and Spanier.
ReplyDeleteIf MM was told his gambling transgressions would not be made public as long as he remained the compliant tool of JVP's destruction - it would explain the disconnect between his espoused "love" for Paterno despite his silence. It's a common tactic in use by DA's and prosecutors to co-opt witnesses and hold them to the party line.
It's starting to look like PSU's payoff to V2 (Sgt. A.M., USMC, as JZ revealed him to the world the day you broke with him) is hush money. Get lost and don't talk to any one. It has Frazier's fingerprints all over it.
ReplyDeleteIf Jay Paterno and others knew of MM's gambling and sexual addictions in 2010, It just shows how out of it Joe Paterno was in his last 4 years, as if any more evidence is needed. There just didn't seem to be any accountability at any level. He was much sicker that anyone realized. MM's sexual escapades also explains why he immediately associated slapping sounds with sex.
John Ziegler is an interesting bird. I thought that he was just irreverent and politically incorrect like myself. Now, I think that he is sociopathic. He certainly behaves that way. His participation in this fiasco has given him an enormous amount of media exposure..a paparazzi's dream! He could even make a few bucks out of it, but he doesn't want any PSU people in his way. Maybe it takes a sociopath to do what he has done...history is full of people like that who accomplished great things by being at the right place at the right time.