When "anal rape" was an allegation in the Sandusky case it was repeated again and again. When "anal rape" became an acquittal, it was subject to a media blackout.
By
Ray Blehar
The November 5th, 2011 grand jury presentment's statement that a young boy was "being subjected to sexual intercourse by a naked Sandusky" resulted in public outrage at Penn State. Media broadcasts and newspapers repeated the story that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the PSU locker rooms for days on end.
That media drumbeat resulted in Paterno and Spanier losing their jobs -- primarily because of that single (inflammatory) allegation.
On November 11th, Sara Ganim, after meeting with her editors and local DAs, began reporting the incident as an "anal rape" instead of the legal term Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. Allegedly, this was to save "copy" in her columns. However, her report about McQueary's report of an "anal rape" would be proven inaccurate about one month later.
The December 16th, preliminary hearing
testimony of Mike McQueary proved the falsity of the Sandusky grand
jury presentment’s statement that he had reported
seeing Sandusky engaged in sexual intercourse with a young boy. It also refuted the Patriot News (P-N) story that McQueary had reported an “anal rape” to Paterno.
McQueary testified that he never used the words “anal or rape in this since day
one” in discussing the incident with Paterno.
The reports by the OAG and the P-N claiming that McQueary provided
graphic details of that incident to Paterno caused a media firestorm and caused
irreparable harm to PSU.
The P-N's error was
so egregious that it should have resulted in a front page correction and perhaps even an apology. Those never came. In addition, the P-N also never criticized
the OAG for publishing that known falsehood in the grand jury presentment. It was clear that the paper of record didn't care about accuracy in its reporting -- it was more concerned with sensationalism.
The McQueary
incident, regardless of all the other facts in the case, was the whole “Penn
State sex scandal” in the eyes of the public.
And the P-N was not about to
let the public know they got a major fact of the story wrong.
From November 2011
up until the trial, the public perception never changed because corrections were never made.
The scenario remained: McQueary had seen a rape on PSU’s campus and that PSU had covered it
up.
The media likely expected that the Sandusky trial would prove the
first half of that scenario.
Then it didn’t.
When the verdicts
were returned, the jury did not believe Mike McQueary had witnessed a
rape. The charge of Involuntary Deviate
Sexual Intercourse (IDSI) in the Victim 2 incident resulted in a not guilty
verdict. It was one of only three not
guilty verdicts in the case, while 45 counts went the other way.
The incident – and
more specifically, the allegation that inflamed the public against PSU resulted
in a not guilty verdict barely garnered any “copy” in the first two days of the
P-N’s post-trial reporting.
Of the nine stories (list below banner at bottom) the P-N
ran covering the trial verdicts in the two days following the trial, only one
sentence in one
story specifically addressed that not guilty verdict. Sara
Ganim’s column, titled, “Jerry Sandusky verdict: Guilty verdict met with
rousing applause on courthouse lawn” contained this passage:
“His wife, Dottie, showed emotion only when the first not
“guilty count” was read. It was for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in
the case of Victim 2 -- the assault assistant coach Mike McQueary says he
witnessed in a Penn State shower in 2001.”
A story on the jury's deliberations ran on June 24, 2012 and cited the jury foreman Joshua Harper, who explained why the jury acquitted. It was the only other story go further than to just list the acquittal.
Former
Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary testified about seeing Sandusky
with a boy in the Penn State football building showers in 2001.
McQueary
said he never actually saw penetration by Sandusky, meaning the rape charge
would not stand. But after reviewing testimony, Harper said the close contact
McQueary did see was enough to carry the day for indecent contact and three
other counts.
Others in the media followed the P-N’s
lead and simply repeated that Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts -- with no mention of the most important charge in the case resulting in an acquittal. As a result, many in the media and the public continue to believe the false story that McQueary witnessed and reported a rape to PSU officials.
For an incident
that caused a media firestorm when it was an allegation, it caused a virtual media blackout as an acquittal.
Great investigation, Ray. Love your style here of presenting Chap 9, then 8, next 7... of course this really puts the pressure on you to blow our socks off with some grande finale!!
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your incredible time and efforts here. I agree with a previous commenter: too bad you weren't hired to do the "Freeh" report (and got filthy rich doing it! If Matt Sandusky earned $2 million for his efforts, you certainly deserve $10+ millions!).
Thanks for the kind words.
DeleteI think Chapter 3 will probably be the best.