What if everything you thought you knew about the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal wasn't true?
FIS Special Agent John Snedden
What if that infamous locker room incident that Mike McQueary supposedly witnessed 16 years ago -- featuring a naked Jerry Sandusky showering with an underage boy -- had nothing to do with sex? And what if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?
And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?
There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.
McQueary Bombshell: Original 2010 police statement reveals another version of his story and the OAG's "Rudy" ruse.
THEORY: BALDWIN HANDS OVER SCHULTZ FILE
IN JANUARY 2011
my July 2015 article, I put forth strong evidence of the theory that former PSU
attorney Cynthia Baldwin had retrieved Gary Schultz’s ‘secret’ Sandusky file
(that he actually informed her about) and submitted a copy of the file to the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) in early January 2011 behind her
client’s back, breaching attorney-client privilege.
that time Baldwin was representing Penn State’s Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, and
Joe Paterno (who soon hired outside counsel) who were being questioned in the
Jerry Sandusky investigation about a 2001 incident that was reported to them by
article, if true, lays out a strong case of malpractice by Baldwin and exposes
many lies of the state actors relating to the 2001 incident where McQueary
walked in on Sandusky and a boy showering at night in the Lasch Building.
Schultz testified that he told Baldwin that he may have a file in his old
office at Penn State and that it would help him to jog his memory if he could
look at it. (We later learn the file was indeed right where he told her it was.)
She told him that would not be necessary and that he should not retrieve the
file or refresh his memory.
at the evidence produced in my article, it certainly appears that Baldwin
retrieved the file, made a copy and gave that copy to the OAG. At this point it seems the PSU men were no
longer being looked at to help prosecute Sandusky but rather be prosecuted
Baldwin did give Schultz’s file to the OAG then they had the approximate date of the
2001 incident: February 12, 2001. And they definitely knew the year.
included communications, notes, and emails regarding the 2001 incident that was
reported by McQueary to Joe Paterno. Paterno then reported it to Tim Curley and
Gary Schultz, and the latter two in turn reported it to Graham Spanier. Looking
at the notes, out of context, the OAG felt the PSU men may have failed to
report or even covered up the 2001 incident.
The OAG was now not only investigating Sandusky but Schultz, Curley,
Paterno, and Spanier as well.
While still unreported by the media, the biggest news coming from the first day of trial testimony was that Mike McQueary blew the whistle on the Sandusky grand jury leaker. By Ray Blehar On the first day of trial testimony in the trial of Dr. Graham Spanier, Mike McQueary stumbled while testifying and let slip that the Office of Attorney General (OAG) former informed him that they were going to leak information about the impending Sandusky charges. Maribeth Roman Schmidt, spokesperson for PS4RS was in the courtroom when McQueary made the statement. She wrote:
Forgot to mention the shocker of the day!! While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he was when he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news. I kid you not. Heard it with my own ears and saw him catch himself with my own eyes. It must be in the court transcripts
The jury’s impossible verdict that Spanier supervised and
endangered an unknown child will be overturned on appeal and the fight will
Over the last week pieces of the truth were revealed, however the false
narrative of a Penn State cover-up by the Harrisburg Patriot news and national
media were too pervasive for a Dauphin County jury to completely exonerate former
PSU President Dr. Graham Spanier.
The jury reached a guilty verdict that did not comport with the
elements of the Endangering the Welfare of Children (EWOC) statute. Specifically, they found that Dr. Spanier
was responsible for the welfare of a child who has yet to be identified.
The child, known as Victim 2, could not possibly be tied to being
supervised by anyone other than Jerry Sandusky because (allegedly) he is
They tendered the verdicts around 4:00 PM – likely choosing their
weekend plans over reaching the legally correct verdict.
Tim Curley's testimony that he and he alone altered a prior reporting plan blows apart Freeh's conclusion that Sandusky would have been reported if not for Paterno's intervention By Ray Blehar Former Penn State Athletic Director Timothy Curley testified yesterday that legendary former coach Joe Paterno did not advise him to change anything about a plan that he and Gary Schultz developed in response to the 2001 report of Sandusky showering with a boy. Curley's testimony refutes former FBI Director Louis Freeh's "reasonable conclusion" that Paterno changed the plan. Freeh's conclusion was based on an unauthenticated email in which Curley purported wrote: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we had agreed were the next steps." Freeh leaped to the conclusion that Paterno was responsible for convincing Curley to not report Sandusky to authorities. In a nationwide press conference Freeh stated: "Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley." Curley's testimony adds to the evidence of that the Freeh Report was incomplete and inaccurate.
If put in the role of Spanier's defense
attorney, here is what I would tell the jury tomorrow.
gentlemen of the jury.
In the case you
will hear, the Commonwealth wants you to find Dr. Graham Spanier guilty for the
inactions of others who were legally required to protect children from Jerry
When Penn State University officials learned of Sandusky showering
with children in 1998, the police and child welfare officials conducted a full
investigation of the matter.
Mr. Jerry Lauro, a program assistant with the Department of Public
Welfare Children and Youth Services in Harrisburg, learned early in the 1998
investigation that Sandusky had showered with TWO children and had given each
of them bear hugs while naked.
One of these boys later became known as Victim 6 because of Sandusky's conduct in the shower.
Later in the investigation, Mr. Lauro interviewed Jerry
Sandusky. Sandusky admitted he had done
the same thing with other children.
Mr. Lauro’s role in the 1998 investigation was to determine if it
was safe for Sandusky to be around children.
several explanations why Curley and Schultz copped pleas on the eve of the
trial – and the law isn’t one of them.
Today’s plea deals by former Penn
State University (PSU) officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz could be explained by a number of
scenarios – however the law isn’t one of them.
As reported here,
the Office of Attorney General (OAG) had an almost impossible task of proving
the four requirements of the Endangering the Welfare of a Child
(EWOC) statute. In the triggering 2001 incident, the OAG cannot
prove that PSU officials had a duty of care to the
unknown victim or the age of the victim. Next, the evidence is overwhelming
that Sandusky was not a PSU employee and was not under the supervision of PSU
officials. Finally, it cannot prove that
PSU officials had any reason to believe that Curley’s report of the incident to
The Second Mile would not result in protective action by the charity. Those
facts nullify the possibility of an EWOC conviction.
If the EWOC conviction fails, so does
the conspiracy to commit it.