Saturday, July 23

Former Penn State Player Responds to recent Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial

In response to an editorial published by the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 18, 2016, former Penn State football player, Christian Marrone, wrote the following response.  Unfortunately, the Inquirer did not see fit to publish his comments or to present alternative points of view.  


By Christian Marrone

Former Penn State football
 player Christian Marrone

As a former Penn State Football player who proudly signed the Letterman’s letter of July 5, 2016 requesting that the university restore the statue, honor Joe Paterno and apologize to his family, I am compelled to respond to your July 18, 2016 editorial in which you unfairly excoriate those who coached and played football at Penn State.

Since November 2011, I’ve read the Inquirer’s coverage – and editorializing -- of a false narrative based on nothing more than a rush to judgment. Sadly, your paper has favored sensationalism that sells papers over simple fact finding and due process. Long after he has been laid to rest, my coach, Joe Paterno -- who was never charged with committing, witnessing or covering up a crime – has been indicted by your paper over and over again in nearly every Penn State news cycle, without any real consideration for the facts. But shamefully, you have never once penned a single editorial that exposes the accountability of The Second Mile or the shortcomings of Pennsylvania’s child protective services that rubber-stamped Jerry Sandusky as an adoptive parent for decades. Arguably, it was you, the media, who made it about football when you chose to write about statues instead of the undisputed gateways to Sandusky’s victims.

Your calculated omission and disregard of facts in your most recent editorial are striking. If you
had read the documents recently unsealed by a Philadelphia judge, you would have included in
your editorial that they provided no additional or definitive information regarding Joe Paterno’s
knowledge of accusations that allegedly date back to the 1970s. If you had read the strongly
worded reactions from coaches who fortunately still can defend themselves, you would know
that both Tom Bradley and Greg Schiano emphatically denied any knowledge of Sandusky’s
alleged crimes. But you again chose to omit these facts. Instead, you cherry picked double and
triple hearsay statements and uncorroborated information that the Attorney General’s office stated had no merit to intentionally put Paterno and Penn State football back in the headlines for
the benefit of attracting readership. 

As a news organization, and in your investigative capacity, I challenge you to truly examine several critical aspects of this complex case that remain inexplicably untouched by the media thus far. 
My former classmate, teammate and roommate, Mike McQueary, has no fewer than four versions on record of what he allegedly witnessed in the Lasch Building in 2001. Please find out why. 
The Penn State Board of Trustees paid Louis Freeh more than $8 million to create a highly flawed, factually insufficient representation of Penn State’s accountability in the Sandusky saga that has been summarily dismissed by many including the former Attorney General of United States, Dick Thornburgh. Please find out why. 
The Penn State Board of Trustees paid $93 million in settlements to insufficiently vetted claimants and is set to elect the trustee that lead this effort as its new chairman. Please find out why. 

Until the Philadelphia Inquirer finally tackles the real questions that get to facts of the Sandusky
scandal, we will be left to conclude that it is not the Penn State community with football-induced
delusion, as you assert, but instead that Inquirer editorial board itself, anonymously recycling a
horribly false narrative with reckless impunity in a desperate attempt to simply sell papers.

Christian P. Marrone
Class of 1997


  1. Well stated; the facts cannot be disputed except by the media publishing sensational lies while ignoring the true facts of this complex matter. Organizations like the Inquirer worship profits and have proven over and over again that they will put profits and sensationalism over integrity and ethics.

  2. Let me ask you one question. If you son were raped, tortured by a monster, and one of the most powerful people in NCAA football did the minimal required by law. He told his boss and nothing else. Would you feel the same about Mr. Paterno. I dare to say you would not feel the same. So why then when that was exactly how he reacted to the rape and torture of a nameless victim it is ok? You are a hypocrite and nothing more. He protected his brand and his team and nothing more.

    1. What else did you think he could do? Someone told him something and he reported it. He wasn't the police, he wasn't the President of the university, he wasn't even the director of athletics. Whine on, you don't make any points with me. All those buzz words you use don't change a thing in your campaign. Your self justification in attacking a man who never even got a chance to defend himself is contemptible.

    2. FACT: Mike McQueary testifed that he didn't report a rape or use any explicit language to describe what he saw...and especially not to Joe Paterno.

      FACT: Sandusky was found NOT GUILTY of the rape charge in that incident.

      FACT: Unknown's knowledge of the case is based on sensationalized media accounts.

    3. Well, Ray, what can we expect from someone who posts under the name "Unknown" and yet if you click on it, it takes you right to her name and photograph? Perhaps not the brightest light in the disco ball?

    4. Linda, hilarious observation about "unknown"! Too funny--she spews her vitriol anonymously with her photo attached! I don't think she even understands that she has put forth a false analogy and circular reasoning as her argument. Clearly, a failed attempt to explain why "Sandusky and his crimes are a product of the highly ethical and esteemed Joe Paterno". She needs to get a clue that Sandusky is the tip of the iceberg and a product of organized crime within PA government. RICO statutes investigation anyone?

    5. This is in response to Unknown aka Sue Mulvey:

      Let me ask you a few questions. What if your testimony was twisted and manipulated by state prosecutor Frank Fina, and used by Tom Corbett, the Most Powerful Person in Pennsylvania government to take down Dr. Spanier in a political assassination and NOT used to correctly investigate, charge and prosecute a preferential child sexual offender and his victim farm of a charity?

      What if that resulted in destroying your life and your family?

      What if this twisting of your testimony resulted in NOT properly investigating other individuals and licensed professionals, which would have resulted in positive change across the commonwealth - instead, this singular lie of "rape in a shower" resulted in such economic, social and reputational damage to the commonwealth citizenry of biblical proportions, of whose constitutional rights you were sworn to uphold?

      What if you had only properly investigated, charged and prosecuted based on ALREADY credible victim testimony from 1998 and left Penn State out of it?

      So while folks like Sue Mulvey are going on about Mike's testimony - which Frank Fina NEVER NEEDED because the Jury found NOT GUILTY - and while folks like Sue Mulvey are gyrating about what Joe did or did not know, statues and football - the unanswered questions about Second Mile, Centre County CYS and any FRAUD, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY and other possible CRIMES AGAINST KIDS goes unanswered.

      Do us all a favor Sue. Stay under the front porch and bark. You can't run with the Big Dogs.

  3. Its not too hard to figure out the whereabouts of Unknown's head

  4. I have three sons and I would have wanted justice. How would "unknown" feel if the media and entire country attacked his father if he followed Paterno's same actions? Coach Paterno did the maximum as far as I'm concerned. Had he done more, the same media would have destroyed Paterno for playing God and ruining the reputation of the "fine citizen "that Sandusky was. Any action would have been sensationalized by the media. Truth be damned. Great letter Christian. Thank you.

    1. Aimee,
      The evidence is CONCLUSIVE that the 2001 incident happened around a corner and was not visible to McQueary. In 2001, he wasn't able to describe what he saw to anyone. In 2010, he changed his story.

      Paterno, rather than trying to remember and equivocating about what he was told, should have simply said he didn't remember. That would have been the most accurate answer he could have given.

    2. Absolutely. I may not have said it clearly , but I believe Paterno was scapegoated for media sensationalism. I have no problem with his response. When I spoke of justice , I meant actually fixing CYS and acknowledging Second Mile. We are truly on the same team here. You are amazing Ray and I appreciate you have done and continue to do.

    3. Ray,

      Did Mike McQueary have his lawyer with him when he talked to the police in 2010? If so, has the lawyer been deposed about what the police said in the interview?

    4. Tim,
      Mike lawyered up after he was contacted by the police. He discussed the incident in the presence of his attorney. As I said in my interview, I suspect Mike was threatened with FTR by the prosecutors and his small town lawyer caved and cut the deal.

      I believe he should be deposed to determine what the police or prosecutors said, however, A/C privilege would be an issue that would have to be carefully navigated.

    5. A/C privilege doesn't apply when a third party is present. If the lawyer sat in on the police interview, he could testify about anything the police said to Mike. He could also testify about any conversations he had with prosecutors. Maybe the police did the same trick of turning the tape recorder off to say things to influence Mike's statement.

      Just the fact that there was a deal with prosecutors would cast doubt on Mike's testimony. I don't remember Sandusky's lawyers asking Mike if he got a deal from the prosecution.

  5. What a great letter written. I have two favorite parts. The first is that it placed accountability on the paper for what was written and when the paper was called on the carpet they had no choice but not to publish the letter. The second favorite part is the fact that McQueary is mentioned as having four versions of what he saw. I have grown to despise McQueary where others are calling him a hero. His testimony was so poor that the first grand jury found him to be an unreliable witness and did not hand down indictments. While others view him as a hero, the people who took the time to gather all the facts know what really happened and are not so eager to blast the school or the "football culture" that they like to label it.

    1. The Grand Jury that HEARD MM testify just didn't think what he actually said..........warranted any charges. However, later that day 2 Ham sandwiches were in big trouble.

    2. Hello Ray, has anyone produced an anime documentary of MM footsteps in the Lasch Building in 2001 for each of his 4 retellings of the events that night?

    3. Rocco,
      I am sure you are not alone in despising Mike for what he did. While hatred is a wasted emotion, I simply hope that Mike will come clean about this sooner than later.

  6. The entire world is truly doomed as long as people like Unknown above continue to occupy it. Scumbags like Sandusky require more than anything else in the world, equally scumbaggy people like Unknown in order to accomplish their scumbaggery.

  7. Excellent letter.

    Maybe he could get it published in State College News or Onward State if the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't want it.

  8. Very well said Wendy! You should be an attorney!

  9. Bravo Wendy - very well said. I spent this very early AM going back over The entire Surma Vendetta, Vendetta II, and Vendetta Revisited posts to refresh my memory. I am still amazed that no one in the MSM ever picked up on the travesty visited on Penn State by John Surma and Tom Corbett that resulted in the Nov coup that destroyed PSU's fine reputation based on the bogus representation of McQueary's testimony