Sunday, September 2

FOUR WORDS in 10 min. & 3 Vague Curley Emails Mr.Costas

I tried to watch Bob Costas interview with Joe Posnanski again early on Saturday and once again I could not stomach it. I made it about 10 minutes in or maybe less when Costas said paraphrasing - 
"it is unrealistic to believe in a community as small as Penn State and State College to believe that Joe Paterno did not know about the 1998 investigation of Jerry Sandusky - and knowing that he failed to take the statement of Mike McQueary seriously enough in 2001 - a terrible unfathomable mistake" 
Gee Bob - I'm a bit confused. The PA Department of Public Welfare followed up a Centre County Youth Services inquiry into a complaint logged by the Mother of Victim 6 - as we have come to know him - with the PSU Police Department. The mother was concerned because her son came home with wet hair after working out with Jerry Sandusky and taking a shower. 

These are very confidential inquiries Bob by their very nature. No one is supposed to know about them. We know from some email provided by Freeh in exhibits 2A through E that Chief Harmon relayed some information about the inquiry to Gary Schultz. And we know that Schultz told Tim Curley very little. As a matter of fact this is all that Gary passed on to Tim. 

So Gary heard from Tom and said these few things to Tim. 
1) Public Welfare would interview someone on Thursday the 7th of May 
2) on May 14 Gary misled Tim telling him a DPW was on hand the previous week and that a psychologist would be talking to the boys over the next week - but we know that Seasock talked to them on the 8th. 
3) On the 19th\ Gary told Tim they would not hear anything prior to the end of the week 
4) Then on June 8th Gary returned from vacation and Tom had told him that DPW and the Univ Police were supposed to have interviewed Sandusky and he would see if that had happened and get back to him
5) On June 9th Gary told Tim "they met with Jerry on Monday and concluded there was no CRIMINAL behavior and the matter was closed. That Jerry was concerned about how it might have adversely affected the child. That the matter had been appropriately investigated and he hoped it was now behind them. 

Bob - here is all we can extrapolate from those emails. 
A boys mother was concerned about a workout and shower involving her son and Jerry Sandusky. Tom Harmon read Gary Schultz the police report and Gary took notes. Gary only told Tim that DPW people would be interviewing the boy and Sandusky and a psychologist would be interviewing "the boys". And finally Gary told Tim the inquiry ended with no Criminal or Sexually inappropriate charges. 

Since that is all that Tim knew it is all he could have told Joe IF he told him anything. So what Freeh terms a criminal investigation of child abuse was to Tim and Gary an inquiry by DPW and PSU police of a mother's concern about a workout and shower that ended in no Criminal or Sexually inappropriate behavior being found. Thus it was not deemed "criminal" and never entered as a criminal investigation. For them it was simply a misunderstanding on the part of the mother. 

Nothing in this information shows Joe was told anything and IF it was mentioned to him it is quite likely the mention went like this: Tim to Joe 
"Joe - a mother has contacted DPW and PSU police after her son came home from a workout and shower with Jerry. She was concerned something inappropriate might have happened. The DPW had a psychologist speak with the boy and they interviewed Jerry and concluded there was no criminal or sexually inappropriate behavior"
There is no reason to expect that Joe knew anything and IF he did that is what he would have known. So ask yourself this simple question: If Joe knew about this why would he not just tell the Grand Jury this: 
"Sure I knew that a mother was concerned about a workout and shower between her son and Jerry and the DPW looked into it with the police thoroughly and they concluded there was nothing criminal or sexually inappropriate."  
Answer that for us please Bob. Why would that information make it more likely that Joe would be more alarmed about whatever Mike said to him in that 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room visit on Feb 9 2001. *which incidentally he described as the Friday before Spring Break in March of 2002.. 


Bob we know that Mike spoke to Joe for 10 minutes so lets try to figure this out can we? Since Mike was telling the story would it not be fair to presume he did most of the talking? Say 6 out of the 10 minutes? Is that reasonable? 

Now we know that Joe said these words to the Grand Jury "a sexual nature" and "fondling". We also know Joe said these words:  

I'm not sure I said, I'm not sure... I'm not sure what the term...I'm not sure exactly... I don't know...I'm not sure exactly...I didn't push Mike to describe exactly...I don't know whether... I can't be precise...I don't know whether... I'm not sure when...I believe I did it...I don't know...I don't remember...
14 statements relating to memory issues from an 84 year old man at them time of his testimony in recalling specific facts relating back more than 10 years for some of the disingenuous to quit applying specific detail to his 6 minutes of testimony despite Joe not being able to provide specific detail himself. They continue to claim the specific detail that Joe said it was a sexual nature but consistently fail to use Joes full statement of I'm not sure exactly what it was.

Now please be realistic Bob. Try to dismiss all you've heard of Jerry Sandusky except the following: Acclaimed Defensive Coordinator of Linebacker U for decades. Honored Charity Founder helping 100's of disadvantaged kids. Foster father of 7. Honored by Pres Bush, Sen Santorum and the elite of Pennsylvania. Author of books and adept fund raiser. - and now assume you are Joe Paterno who knew him for 30 years, or AD Curley who knew him for at least 15. 

And be honest Bob - you hear that this Jerry who has been bringing the Second Mile boys to PSU games, camps, workouts and yes showers since 1977 without a single complaint has been the object of a complaint by a mother concerned about a workout and a shower. Jerry's fellow coaches knew that Jerry had been serving as a surrogate father for these poor underprivileged boys for a long time giving his time to bring them to the PSU football games and locker, workout and shower rooms. Many had shared these workouts and showers with Jerry and the boys - its' a male bonding thing that sports guys have done forever. Nothing weird or strange about it - and certainly nothing sexual. 

What would your first reaction be if you heard a mother was concerned? I suggest it would be that the mother made a mistake. 

Now let's fast forward to a Saturday morning in Feb of 2001 and Mike comes to your door soon after Kenny Jackson announced he was leaving the coaching staff. Mike goes into a 5 or 6 minute description of his 45 second locker room visit. Every word of this version of a part of Mike's description to Joe is in his testimony under oath to the court in the Perjury preliminary hearing. 
"Joe I entered the locker room and heard 2 or 3 slapping sounds.. I immediately thought - given it was 8:30pm that there was a coach or player in the showers with a woman. I started to leave but decided to put my new shoes in the locker and from there I could just see into the shower room through a mirror. More than one of the showers was running and I was -well visualizations run through your head - I was about to get out of there embarrassed but I glanced for one or two seconds and it was an older man's backside under the shower. 
I didn't know what I was seeing I couldn't believe it was him so I moved to where I could see him without using mirror.and glanced again for one or two seconds. Jerry Sandusky was standing upright behind a boy who's head came up to Jerry's pectorals. The boy was standing upright with his hands on the wall and Jerry was right behind him with his arms were around him. 
I slammed the locker room door and then moved so we could see each other face to face. I don't know what was happening. It was just those two glances and I though from the slapping sound that something - uh I don't know - of a sexual nature was going on in that shower before I even glanced and then I saw the boy and thought that Jerry could be fondling the boy or something but when I saw his face he didn't show any distress or pain or anything. He didn't seem to want my help so I just got out of there in a hurry because it felt really uncomfortable. 
So I called my Dad and he told me to come home and speak with him. Dr. Dranov was there when I got home so I told them what I'm telling you and they thought I should come talk to you. I know Jerry isn't a coach anymore so I wondered what he was doing there with a boy that late in the evening. Maybe he was a foster child or grandchild staying at the Sandusky house? 
I didn't know what to do so I'm telling you. It just didn't seem right to me and I thought you should know. Maybe they were just horsing around - you know how Jerry is always wrestling with people and is so physical. I couldn't really say anything bad was happening but it was just weird to me. What do you think I should do? I can't say anything for certain about the incident.  I was only in the locker room for 45 seconds." 
"I really hate to bring this up to you but Dad and Dr. Dranov said I should. It shook me up at first because I expected to see two adults doing something of a sexual nature. But the more I consider it the possibility that the boy was one of Jerry's foster grand kids and I didn't see enough to request a police investigation based on my glances."
All of this - the one or two second glances, the three slapping sounds, the I didn't know what I was seeing or what to think, the visualizations, the positions, standing upright, no distress or pain, height difference - it's all in Mikes testimony under oath. This is definitely one version of how that description to Joe could have gone. 

So think about it. Mike couldn't convince his father or doctor that it was a police matter. But somehow we "know" Joe made a mistake? Come on Bob - give us a better account of what happened based on Mike's testimony and those emails. 

I'm sure I could come up with a story that is far more damning but it wouldn't be any more accurate or inaccurate than this imagined account base on the evidence and testimony. But I'm not the guy claiming that Joe knew more than he said he did and that he made a massive mistake that deserves the defamation his name has endured or the penalties the NCAA levied on Penn State. 

Based on these 4 words in 10 minutes and 3 vague emails from Tim Curley to Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno has been dragged through the media mud and condemned as a moral failure. Penn State university has suffered incredible penalty and vilification all because of these 4 words and those emails made to be something unforgivable by Louis Freeh for 6.5 million dollars.. 4 word in 10 minutes. - unbelievable. 

Read More About the FREEH FICTION on SMSS 


  1. Hey guys, great work, but you need to put each article / piece on a separate page, so those of us who care, can tweet or post links to each one more easily....

    1. Just click on the title of the article and it shows up on it's own separate page the same thing happens when you click on "read more" - at that point the link is in the address window.

    2. Why not involve the Penn State Alumni Association.

      Over 500,000 strong should have enough clout to pressure the BOT to reject the Freeh report and fight the NCAA sanctions.

      The lack of action by the BOT smells bad. How does those entrusted in protecting the University allow Joseph V. Paterno along with administrative personnel and the University to be defamed and scandalized without a fight.

      BTW, Linda Kelly AG (Pitt) Bob Costas (Syracuse) PennState haters.

    3. Hey Ron,
      I think almost everyone we have involved is a Penn State Alumnus. The 9600 members of PS4RS on FaceBook for instance - that's Penn Staters for Responsible Leadership. Reaching the remainder of the 500,000 alumni is not that easy. The website has been growing daily up to 120,000 visits in August from 1474 in June.

    4. Ron,
      the PSAA is not allowed to involved itself in anything related to elections, which includes any sort of activity aimed toward the BOT. Judging by the defense of our "culture" written by Roger Williams, I would bet people at PSAA are extremely frustrated and would love to get in on this fight but are hamstrung by their own bylaws. We as alumni have to rally the troops on our own, and you can help by sharing this site with everyone you know.

  2. Barry - Jessi

    I joined the PS4RS this AM. I am not an alum of PSU, my oldest attended PSU and left to join our firm and later graduated from DeSales Univ. His wife is a PennStater, both BA & Masters. My wife and I are former Nittany Lion Club members for 33 years. She even has letters from Joe over the years.

    The BOT should be ashamed of themselves accepting Freehs report as gospel and accepting the NCAA sanctions without a fight. The NCAA will regret they applied any sanctions based on the Freeh report.

    I don't believe Tom Corbett is a friend of Penn State University.

    My heart and prayers go out to the Paterno and PennState family.

  3. MM testified at the Sandusky trial as to what he told Joe as follows :

    “I told him and I want to make sure I'm clear. I made sure he knew it was sexual and wrong. There was no doubt."

    MM's testimony before the Grand Jury and at the Preliminary Hearing is to the same effect. Joe, in turn, CONFIRMED MM's testimony when he told the Grand Jury that "It was a sexual nature".

    MM NEVER testified that he said TO JOE:

    "I couldn't really say anything bad was happening but it was just weird to me."

    You're making up conversations. Do you think that it helps Joe's cause to imagine conversations that never took place?

  4. "This is definitely one version of how that description to Joe could have gone."

    How about the "version" set forth in MM's and Joe's testimonies, namely, MM testified that he told Joe that what he saw was "sexual" and Joe testified that what MM saw was "sexual"?

    We have two witnesses confirming each other's testimony. What's the problem? There's no need to imagine conversations. Why don't we stick to the sworn testimony and lay off the creative writing?

  5. Ron,
    Barry mentions above. is an organization formed with the specific mission of voting out the current PSU Board of Trustees and enacting positive change at PSU. They were formed following the firing of Paterno and their numbers have more than doubled since the release of the Freeh Report and the NCAA sanctions. They currently have about 10,000 members - alumni, students, and supporters of PSU.

  6. If MM had testified that he said "horseplay" to Joe and Joe testified that MM said "sexual" to him, there would be something to argue about.

    If MM had testified that he said "sexual" to Joe and Joe testified that MM said "horseplay" to him, there would be something to argue about.

    But MM testified that he said "sexual" to Joe and Joe testified that MM said "sexual" to him. So what is there to argue about?

    1. Unknown-For the purposes of this comment I will assume that Joe, at 74, understood that Mcq was conveying something of a sexual nature(albeit vague, and certainly not sodomy in a descriptive way). But I am not sure what that proves to all of those who want to tear JP down. Costas in effect accuses JP of making a terrible unfathomable mistake(strong, tough words by a small guy) by not taking MCQ seriously. Lets look at the facts. Mcq sees something, that night reports that something to his father and DR D, and father and DR D advise Mcq, based on what they presumably were told by him, to see JP. Presuably they don't tell him make a report of what he saw. Rather, they dumped the problem in JP's lap. NOW if JP, after listening to Mcq, did NOT take what Mcq had to say seriously, or wanted to cover things up, he would of either ahve tried to convince MCq he didn't see anything, would have instructed/ suggested Mcq to say nothing to anyone, and/or would have tried to soft shoe it. BUT JP didn't do any of that. JP as a PSU employeee(and JP was approached by Mcq in that capacity) took the matter seriously enough and followed what he belived to be proper PSU procedure and REPORT the incident to the head of the PSU police and to his immediate superior(the AD). JP did his job. It was for others to do theirs. It is easy for a guy like Costas, whose job does not involve making real world, real time decisions that have a real effect on peoples lives, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and of course to create a story line, to hold JP up against the perfect man, to only find out that which we already knew, that JP was not perfect. To have a GREAT story, you need to have a terrible unfathomable mistake, and to have a mistake of such a magnitude, you need a hero to make it. This whole story, from the medias perspective, has always been about JP. The story lines and script were written within days after the JS story broke and were driven by JP as the main character . Implicit, but not said in the Costas and others condemnation is that JP was the Pope of Happy Valley. Thats what this all boils down to.

    2. unknown is that scratchy broken record constantly repeating the same tired statements.

      WE Know Mike told Dr. Dranov he saw no sex act. He heard one Three times.
      We know Mike said "I didn't know what to think - I didn't know what I was seeing
      WE Know Mike said "I visualized - you know things run through your mind" speaking of his mind set prior to his glance.
      We Know Mike glanced for "one or two seconds"
      We know all Mike could see was JS backside and a boy standing upright with his feet on the floor in front of him"
      but we also know Mike told Dr. Dranov he saw the boy start to come out of the shower and an arm drag him back inside.
      WE know Mike said he saw no pain, distress, fear or upset on the face of the boy who never asked for his help or cried out during this supposed rape.

      Unknown is in the wrong place trying to reach the wrong people with his distortions and lack of attention to the facts about Mr McQueary and his vastly varying testimony. A guy who told most everyone he saw some horsing around and no sex act. (Dranov, Curley, Paterno and Schultz. He told chat room buddies it was horsing around. He told his wide receivers he stopped it.)
      But the truth is if there was a boy in trouble that night Mike failed him and if he truly believe he was being subjected to anal intercourse he should have told the police after talking to his daddy if that's what he needed.
      But he didn't and for 10 years he sat silent while other's suffered because he failed to act. But the truth is he had nothing to act upon. He couldn't even do more than glance when he believed a kid was suffering.
      Unknown can rely on Mike all he wants but I'm glad I don't have to rely on him to keep kids from being molested.

  7. One of the oddest things about McQueary's various testimonies is the "Rhythmic" and "Sexual" descriptor of 2 or 3 slapping sounds coming from a shower.

    Tom Farrell attorney for Schultz asked him at the Perjury hearing "so the slapping sounds were like this?" as he clapped his hands together 3 times. "You got it" Replies Mike.

    YOU GOT IT? 3 claps were what Mike heard?
    Well there is no Rhythm to 3 claps - since rhythm is established by repeating patterns.
    and two hands clapping is "sexual" to Mike?

    This has all the earmarks of made up and coached testimony. I can just hear prosecutors telling Mike - you better say those 2 or 3 claps were "rhythic" and "sexual".
    Next time you're in the shower slap your palm against your wet thigh or stomach and then against the wall. Then slap your wet foot against the floor. Hear any difference? Does it sound "sexual" to you?

    Mike McQueary's statements and testimony are a bad joke. For me there are only a couple of explanations. He either thought enhancing his testimony would help the prosecution of Sandusky and not hurt PSU - and he wanted to be the center of attention for helping bring Sandusky down. Which isn't very bright. OR
    He went to Joe's that morning thinking he could parlay his locker room visit into Kenny Jackson's job - believing that Joe would want to keep this quiet. But Joe surprise him and kicked it upstairs since JS no longer worked for him and Mike was forced to back off on his 'sexual' statements to Tim and Gary.
    If Mike's a liar or simply feckless anything could be the truth. Mike's now looking for a big payday and a book deal I guess. But the things that Mike has said make no sense.

    Rhythmic and Sexual my Ass

  8. I re-read the testimony of McQueary, Curley, & Schultz last night. A few pertinent issues stick out to me:

    1. McQueary's testimony is so vague that the ability to go forward with possible perjury charges against Curley & Schultz is unbelievable. Both attorneys for Curley & Schultz attempted to make the connections about how invalid McQueary's testimony was but were thwarted by the judge. My opinion, in reading McQueary's testimony, is that he had it made up in his mind when he heard the "slapping sounds" that sex was what was going on. Even before he saw something! What he actually did see and report was pure conjecture on his part. Was it inappropriate, most definitely, but in no way did he see any anal intercourse, sodomy, etc. Because he was doubtful of what he saw, he could not relate anything specific to Paterno, Curley, or Schultz. He even admits to, in his own testimony, to not questioning why Sandusky was continuing to be on campus, until after he was approached by the police with his little forays onto message boards!

    2. Curley clearly states that it was HIS plan (no mention of Paterno here folks!) to perform the steps of notifying the Second Mile and speaking with Sandusky about him not coming into the Lasch Buidling again with children. He states this under oath! He also states he did not have the information that anything McQueary saw was "sexual" and Curley states it was "horsing" around.

    3. Schultz states he thought it was reported to C&Y in his testimony and they would investigate it further, like they had done in 1998. Is there a record of this? Was it decided that it was an unfounded report? Information that does not get recorded as an "official" child abuse report eventually gets destroyed. Were records of this alleged report by Schultz to C&Y ultimately destroyed?

    The bottom line for me is the lack of clear, good information from McQueary totally flavoring this case as he was not really sure of what he saw. He only "thought" he was sure it was of a "sexual nature" because of his assumptions of the sounds he heard and the brief glances in the mirror that he saw. I am not an expert, but I can think in a logical way, and, if a 50 something year old man was anally penetrating a 10-12 year old boy, then I think that maybe that child would be crying out in pain??? McQueary also testified that Sandusky and the child were standing up and the child was not bent over. Did what McQueary see constitute totally inappropriate behavior: YESSSS!! Should there have been more close follow-up by PSU administration in regards to Sandusky and his campus accessibility? YESSS!!! This is where the problem lies for PSU, not in a cover-up but in poor judgement.

    The other really culpable party is the Second Mile and what they did or did not do with the 2001 incident. 2ND Mile Board members, if I recall correctly, report of not being told about Sandusky in the shower again with a child. Just like there is Where's Waldo, we need Where's Jack (Raykovitz). They are even more culpable in this incident since they have primary responsibility for child abuse clearance for any employee, including Sandusky, so where was their follow-up???

    I believe that Curley & Schultz will be acquitted of perjury charges. If and when that happens, what happens to the entire case against PSU, the Freeh Report (B.S.) and the NCAA's rush to judgement?
    Maybe some traction for the truth will be gained then.