Thursday, September 6

Mike McQueary's Story Is Not to be Believed

The Definitive Case 

That Mike McQueary's Story Is Not to be Believed

To my knowledge, never has so much damage been created, and punishment been levied, with so little evidence or even due process.Of the many absolutely incredible aspects of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, clearly the most underrated is that the direct connection to Penn State hangs on the remarkably tenuous story of one man (Mike McQueary) and about four words badgered out of an 84 year old coach in poor health who may have just been trying to make sure he didn’t harm the prosecution’s case.

I have always been baffled as to why there has not been more scrutiny of Mike McQueary’s now infamous allegation that he saw Jerry Sandusky doing something sexual in a Penn State shower with a ten year old boy. If for no other reason than the fact that, if he isn’t telling the truth, then virtually the entire case against Penn State and Paterno instantly falls apart, I have never understood why, with so much at stake, more hasn’t been done to make sure a case of this importance isn’t built on a frighteningly fragile foundation.
To this date, thanks to a press which is all too willing to blindly buy into McQueary’s story, a Sandusky defense team which was clearly overwhelmed, and a Paterno family which has tried hard to take the high road, Penn State’s former wide receiver’s coach has gotten largely a free pass. 
It is my intention for that free pass to finally end now. Based on the facts as we currently know them, I now strongly believe that Mike McQueary did not see anything more definitive than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with boy. Period. End of sentence. End of story. But Read ON 

Now, before I explain why I think this, I do wish to make it clear that a man of Sanduky’s age showering with a young boy is indeed inappropriate and, even considering Sandusky’s widely-known normally “odd” behavior and closeness to children, should have set off alarm bells.
However, those would have been the smaller variety of chimes and not the type of a five-alarm fire sirens which the grand jury scandalously and inaccurately placed in the grand jury presentment with the words “anal intercourse.”
They also just happen to have been the type of bells perfectly consistent with how Joe Paterno and Penn State handled the matter.
In short, I believe the evidence is clear that Penn State didn’t act like it had a five-alarm five on its hands because it wasn’t told it had a five-alarm fire on its hands. And the reason Penn State wasn’t told it had a five-alarm fire on its hands was that Mike McQueary simply didn’t see a five-alarm fire.
There are two aspects to why I think McQueary didn’t see a sex act of any kind. The first deals with McQueary and the second with the actions of Sandusky and the alleged victim.
I will analyze McQueary first.
I have always found it extremely odd that everyone in the media and the justice system seems to presume that the almost ten-year old recollection of Mike McQueary is rock solid but that everyone else in higher positions and with better reputations at Penn State are nothing more than pedophile protecting pathological liars. Make no mistake, this is pretty much what you have to believe for the Freeh Report conclusions to have any chance of being an accurate representation of reality.
Under any circumstances this would be very strange, but when you consider that McQueary got both the month and the year of the episode dead wrong, this blind adherence to his obviously faulty memory becomes absolutely stupefying.
Making this phenomenon even more absurd is that, by his own admission, McQueary didn’t actually see much of anything and his public story (as well as the private version) has had many different incarnations. Most people are completely unaware that McQueary’s testimony is based almost entirely on three slapping sounds he heard while in the locker room.
He admitted under oath that he looked into the shower area expecting to see sex between a man and a woman and was shocked to see Sandusky and a boy. He has always been very clear that, contrary to the grand jury presentment, he didnot see an actual sex act (which, by the way, contrary to public perception, Sandusky was found not guilty of that charge).
What he actually did see is incredibly uncertain at best. At one point he claimed that he saw Sandusky and the boy from his locker through the mirror outside the shower. But there is a video which shows that the geometry of this account is simply not plausible (it should also be pointed out that, based on his description of the boy, the sex act the prosecution implied would have been logistically impossible for Sandusky). At different times he has also described what he saw in those couple of seconds in vastly dissimilar ways.
McQueary has always maintained (publicly) that he saw no sex, no erection on Sandusky, no distress on the face of the boy, no attempt by the boy to ask for help, and no effort on his part to provide it.
That night he spoke about what he saw to his father and his father’s boss Dr. Dranov. Eleven years later Dr. Dranov clearly testified at Sandusky’s trial, despite his close relationship with the McQueary family, that he asked Mike three times whether he saw anything sexual and three times he clearly said no. Even more compelling, had Mike McQueary told Dr. Dranov that he had seen anything in the sexual realm, the doctor, as a mandated reporter, would have been required to go to Child Welfare. He did not do that.
So we have Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz all saying under oath that McQueary told them that he saw nothing directly sexual in the shower that night. The only person who sort of backs up McQueary’s testimony is Joe Paterno, who says that he was told of “fondling” and something of a “sexual nature” (more on that later).  It makes you wonder why those who wanted Sandusky convicted don’t consider Paterno a hero. Without him, McQueary’s testimony totally falls apart and, at that time, much of the case against Sandusky does as well.
Remarkably, there are many more persuasive reasons why Mike McQueary’s testimony (and even more importantly, the prosecution/media’s interpretation of it) should be severely questioned, if not disregarded in its entirety.
Mike McQueary not only changed his story publicly, he did so privately as well. In the aftermath of the grand jury indictments, apparently upset that he was being labeled a coward for not helping the boy and stopping the alleged assault, he wrote an email to friends (some of whom he had told back around the time of the incident that what he saw was no big deal) saying that he had indeed broken up the encounter. Unless he really thinks that simply slamming a locker room qualifies for such a description, this account contradicts his own testimony.
Later, McQueary goes even further and, according to an extremely reliable source, in a meeting of his wide receivers, tells them a wild tale that he not only broke up the assault but he also chased after the naked kid into the March 2002 (actually February 2001) night and never caught up with him!!
It is clear that Mike McQueary has changed his version of this story numerous times to suit his purposes at each particular moment. He even admits to doing this when he claims that he toned down his description while talking to Paterno out of respect for the old legend (which seems particularly odd given that Paterno, who supposedly got a watered down version of the story, was the only person who really backs up McQueary’s testimony at all).
McQueary also inadvertently provided a rather shocking tidbit while speaking to a former player after Paterno’s memorial. After telling this player (who has told me the story on camera) that he never saw any sex or an erection, McQueary stunned this player by indicating that he was surprised that Paterno decided to take what he told him to Curley and Schultz and used that fact as verification that he most have told him something serious (which, among other things, leaves Paterno in the bizarre situation of being widely criticized for not doing enough with the information he had, while simultaneously having the only witness seem to think he went further than expected).
McQueary’s general reputation is also not nearly as good as advertised. I have spoken to another former Penn State player, with a spotless academic and behavioral record, who has told me on camera that he was severely punished by Paterno because of a blatantly false allegation by Mike McQueary. I am also told by multiple sources that it will eventually become clear that Mike McQueary has had reasons to fear law enforcement (and perhaps be vulnerable to his testimony being molded) because of situations which have arisen with women who were not his wife.
But my belief that McQueary didn’t really see anything horrendous in the shower that night is not just based on his incredibly shaky credibility. It also has to do with the remarkable actions of the other two people in the shower that night.
In short, the evidence is overwhelming that Jerry Sandusky has never feared the McQueary story and that the account of “Victim 2” does not match with what McQueary claims he witnessed.
I spoke to a Penn State employee, on camera, who closely advised Jerry Sandusky during the entire grand jury process. At the time, this person (like almost everyone who knew him) thought that Sandusky was innocent. He says that Sandusky was very straight forward with the evidence that he feared would come up. He was very concerned about three separate episodes, none of which was the McQueary allegation (despite the fact that he was well aware that Penn State and the Second Mile had full knowledge of it).
Then, in September of 2011, during the time when the grand jury was still empanelled, Sandusky left a voicemail message on the phone of the person now known as “Victim 2.” In my view this is easily the most underrated piece of evidence in the entire case and yet another outrageous example of how the media has done a horrible job reporting on this whole story. 
In the message it is very clear that Sandusky is returning Victim 2’s call (as other parts of the message indicate, I have also learned that it is highly likely that Sandusky still had a very “good” relationship with Victim 2 at this point). It is also very obvious that Victim 2, in the initial call, has told him that someone has asked him to “come forward.” Sandusky tells him to “go forward” and that “there is nothing really to hide.” Despite this bombshell evidence, the media only focused on the fact that Sandusky ends the call by saying, “luv ya.”
The reason this voicemail is potentially so incredibly important is not only that it shows Sandusky with no fear of the shower story coming out (more on that later), but also because it virtually proves that the prosecution, contrary to public perception, knew who Victim 2 was all along and simply chose not to call him to testify. After all, in September 2011, no one else knew there even was a Victim 2 and no one other than the prosecution would have been asking him to “come forward.”
If this highly reasonable assumption is correct, it raises the obvious question of why the prosecution didn’t call Victim 2 to testify at the grand jury or the criminal trial. Given that Victim 2 has now “come forward” with the aid of civil attorneys looking for a pay day from Penn State, there is seemingly only one plausible answer to that question: Victim 2’s story of what happened in the shower does not (or at least did not) match up with their star witness Mike McQueary’s testimony or the prosecution’s incendiary interpretation of it.
This is backed up by three remarkable things which happened after the indictments and which the media almost completely ignored.
First, Sandusky’s attorney went on national television and said that he has spoken to Victim 2 and that he tells a very different story of what happened in the shower.
Second, Governor Corbett says at his press conference after the indictments that he told the Penn State BOT to “remember the ten-year-old boy” before voting to fire Joe Paterno. Then, mysteriously, a couple of months later Corbett inexplicably (perhaps because he got new information about the boy’s story) denies he ever specifically referenced the boy in the shower, even though it was obviously on tape, and Paterno’s firing could not be rationally connected to any other “children” at the time.
Third, the prosecution changes the date of the episode from March 2002 (from McQueary’s mistaken testimony) to February 2001. It turns out that the date change came from a rather unusual source considering the circumstances. Thefirst person to alert the authorities to the real date of the shower incident was none other than Jerry Sandusky. Once again, it is clear that Sandusky has no fear of the shower story.
Of course, the story of Victim 2 then gets dropped, never to be heard from again until after the criminal trial is over and the Freeh Report/ NCAA sanctions make it obvious that Penn State is not going to fight any of this and will instead just open up its checkbook. At the time I was one of those observers who just presumed it was because we weren’t sure who Victim 2 really was, but it is now apparent that the real reason we never heard from Victim 2 is that no one had an incentive for him to come forward (other than, ironically, Jerry Sandusky).
The defense dropped his story because it seems clear that, as Victim 2’s lawyers have stated, that he was abused by Sandusky “both and after the shower incident” (but not during?) and therefore was of no value to the defense. The prosecution didn’t call him because, as evidenced by what Sandusky’s attorney said, his version of the shower scene doesn’t match McQueary’s. His civil attorneys didn’t want him to come forward until he was free of ever having to testify under oath about what happened and they are confident that Penn State would never require anything as messy as an actual trial or even a deposition.
So, at this point, what we have here is a mountain of circumstantial evidence (the only type you are ever likely to get in a case where you are trying to show something didn’t happen) which indicates that that nothing sexual happened in the Penn State shower that fateful night. Here is a quick review:
Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz all say that McQueary didn’t tell them about seeing anything sexual.
Mike McQueary’s public and private version of the story has changed dramatically.
Mike McQueary is not a credible person/witness.
Jerry Sandusky continually has no fear of the shower story coming out.
Sandusky’s attorney said that Victim 2 told a very different story and has never retracted that.
The Governor of Pennsylvania blatantly changed his story about citing the shower scene to the BOT, curiously cutting any direct ties to that specific story.
The prosecution knew of Victim 2’s existence all along and never called him as a witness.
It is hard to understand how Sandusky got away with being a pedophile as long as he did if he was so incredibly reckless as to have “sex” with a boy in a shower where dozens of other people had access. 
All of this really only leaves two open questions. Why did Mike McQueary get caught in this web of lies, and why did Joe Paterno seemingly back up his testimony?  Both questions have very plausible (and possibly non sinister) explanations, however they are rather complex and require a full analysis which I would like to save for another day. For now, I will just provide the bottom line.
When all the facts finally come out, I now believe that it will be clear that Mike McQueary had different incentives at different stages of this story and at every single one of them his story evolved to match his self interest. I also believe that it is quite possible that two of his more famous statements regarding Joe Paterno (Paterno telling him not to come over if he was looking for a job, and the notion that he toned his story down for Paterno out of respect) may have not only not been true, but may have been blatant lies. These stories may have been designed to protect himself from people figuring out what really happened here once he got caught in a situation far different from what he ever expected..
While I can’t get into the details at this time, I do not come to this theory idly or without actual evidence.
As for Paterno, it seems rather obvious that the media has completely forgotten a narrative that they themselves created in 2010 leading to his grand jury testimony in January of 2011.  He was clearly not well, even for an 84 year-old man. How any four words he uttered while being badgered by a prosecutor desperate for some back up for a star witness who is contradicted by every other piece of evidence could possibly create as much damage to the exemplary life/career he led (as “fondling” and “a sexual nature” have here) is frankly, beyond astounding.
With that said, there is a rather logical explanation for these words which do not involve proof that Paterno “knew” Sandusky did something “sexual” with a boy in a shower and did “nothing” back in 2001. I believe that the evidence (including an interview I did with a Penn State professor who spoke with Paterno about this subject just before he died) will eventually suggest that those words were not Paterno’s recollections of a short ten-year old conversation with McQueary, but rather words which McQueary fed him just prior to his testimony.
The most rational explanation here is really rather simple; almost tragically so. Joe Paterno just could not remember exactly what McQueary told him ten years before, so to “prep” his himself for his testimony (the Freeh Report shows Paterno did not go to the Penn State attorney Cynthia Baldwin to do so) he went to his then trusted wide receivers coach to refresh his recollection. McQueary then, worried only about not being hung out to dry and probably not even thinking about the implications and potential blowback on Penn State, tells Paterno words in late 2010 that he didn’t use in early 2001. Paterno, not knowing any better, not worried about protecting himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong, and not wanting to screw up the prosecution’s case, gives them essentially what they want/need to finally get Sandusky.
What comes after that is simply some of the most unbelievable and unjust history that we have ever witnessed.


  1. Excellent work John. Please don't leave us hanging too long, get the rest of the story out as soon as possible. Also, other than sharing this with as many people as possible, what can we do with this information to help Penn State?

    1. yes Jessi---we need to get the TRUTHFUL story out. the dishonoring of Joe Paterno has gone on long enough, and those of us who believe in him, are quite sick of it!!!!

  2. So when MM testified under oath THREE times that he saw sexual activity and was believed THREE times by the grand jury, trial jury and the perjury judge, he was lying, but every other time that he described the incident, he denied that it was sexual? That's interesting : a man who saves his lies for when testifying under penalty of perjury.

    So when Joe testified under oath that MM said that it was of a sexual nature and the grand jury believed him, Joe was lying, but when he wasn't under oath he said he couldn't remember. That's even more interesting : another man who saves his lies for when he's under oath.

    That conversation between MM and Joe? Where did MM or Joe testify to such a conversation? Who overheard this conversation? Where is the recording? Where are MM's or Joe's notes of such conversation? How is an imagined conversation proof of anything? Clearly, you made up this conversation because otherwise you have no way of explaining why both Joe and MM "lied" as to the sexual nature of the incident. How about this explanation : MM told the truth and Joe told the truth?

    Accusing the victims of wanting a "pay day"? If that's what they really want, how can we believe their testimony against Jerry?

    1. he wasn't believed by the trial jury. did you not know???? sandusky was acquitted of that charge!!

    2. Jerry was CONVICTED of four counts as to Victim 2, including the sex crime of indecent assault. He was only acquitted of the count which required anal penetration because MM testified that he didn't see actual penetration. The jury convicted Jerry on the other four counts because they BELIEVED MM. The jury acquitted Jerry on the penetration count because they BELIEVED MM. This nonsense that the trial jury didn't find Jerry guilty of sexual assault of Victim 2 is exactly that, nonsense.

    3. So, let's look at the facts, shall we?

      The grand jury presentment said McQueary saw a naked Sandusky having anal sex with a boy.

      That's a blatant lie.

      The grand jury presentment said officials at a central Pennsylvania high school had Sandusky banned from the school.

      Another blatant lie.

      The grand jury presentment said Mike McQueary was a credible witness. Yet, that witness, Mike McQueary, changed his story within one week of the presentment being released.

      The grand jury presentment got McQueary's testimony wrong.

      The grand jury presentment shielded the truth from the public by not telling anyone that there were 8 victims to investigate in 1998. By the GJ's count, there were only two.

      The grand jury presentment was intentionally misleading to fool people into believing that PSU was covering up for Sandusky....when the real cover up was by the AG's office.

      What about the SIX VICTIMS And the 300 COUNTS that the AG had BEFORE they even talked to McQueary or the mother of Victim 6.

      Why weren't those victims given their day in court? Why was it that seven of the 8 victims in the presentment that were victimized on PSU property were brought to trial but the SIX abused off PSU property weren't?

      Got any answers for that?

      All of this information is on the public record. It was reported by the press and in the Freeh Report.

    4. I've posted this comment many times in many places but to me it is THE objective, fact-based evidence that anal sex was not occurring. In the cross examination of McQueary in the perjury hearing by Attorney Farrell, he asks McQueary about the relative heights of Sandusky and McQueary and whether they were standing. McQueary states they were both standing and that the top of the boy's head came to Sandusky's pectoral muscle. Anal sex was impossible. It's in the testimony transcript.

  3. This is important info. McQueary has always been the wild card here. Is there any way to access what he had been posting online about this prior to the police finding him? Perhaps the helpful folks @ BWI Rivals have this info already.

  4. John- Excellent analysis. Clearly, the best and most impartial evidence of what MM saw was what he told DR D. It was the closest in time, DR D knew what questions to ask and Dr. D didn't have to worry about the consequences(loss of job, etc). As I recall, MM was in his mid-late 20's in 2001 and held a more junior position. If I was MM's father in 2001 and I(together with DR. D)had advised my son to see JP after my son had told me that he saw JS, a PSU legend for 30 years, having sex with a 10 yr old in the PSU shower, YOU CAN BE SURE that I would have accompanied my son to see JP. The fact that MM's father did not do that is, to me, clear evidence that DR D and MM father viewed this as no big deal.

    1. DR D testified at the Sandusky trial. Nevertheless, the jury convicted Jerry of indecent assault, among other things, based on MM's testimony. So much for DR D.

    2. There was a TV show in the 60's-70's called the "Gong Show". One of the characters was the "Unknown Comic". He wore a bag over his head when he performed. Any relation.

  5. John, really good stuff. My only comment/question is I though I heard Joe say in an interview (must of been with that slime ball from the Washington paper) that MM called him and he did tell MM he didn't have a job for him. Then again, this is maybe part of the prep story MM told Joe to say. The whole thing is so frustratingly sad.

  6. So the "villains" in 2001 were that liar, 26-year-old Mike McQueary, and that "pay day" seeker, 10-year-old Victim 2. How dare they persecute those defenseless innocent babes, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz? Damn the media for neglecting this injustice!

    1. No, the "villain" in 2001 was Jerry Sandusky. You, like most of the media, seem to have trouble remembering that.

    2. While we're imagining conversations, why don't we imagine conversations among the victims in which they agree to lie about poor Jerry? In light of Jerry's years of service to children, it's the only "rational" explanation. Clearly, if Joe's defenders are entitled to make up conversations between Joe and McQueary, Jerry's defenders are entitled to make up conversations between victims.

    3. Are you kidding! The whole case against Joe Paterno is based on “imagined conversations” as you put it. Freeh condemns Paterno based of one vague reference in an e-mail and then speculates as to what conversations Curley and Paterno “may” have had. Freeh condemns all the PSU administrators for covering up the 2001 incident saying that they were worried about Penn State’s image with no evidence to support this theory either. It’s all imagination and speculation. Don’t be a hypocrite “Unknown”, you love “imagined conversations” when they support your viewpoint. As far as “Sandusky defenders” they can imagine away but since he was already found guilty on 45 of the 48 counts in a court of law, they would be wasting their time. Due process is a great thing.

    4. MM testified under oath that he told Joe that what he saw was sexual in nature. Joe testified under oath that what MM told him was sexual in nature. Both MM and Joe said that an actual, not imaginary, conversation took place and testified under oath on what was said during that conversation. It is this conversation which destroyed Joe's reputation. As far as the American public is concerned, anybody who had knowledge of a suspected sexual incident involving Jerry and a child at Penn State and still allowed Jerry to go free for another decade is damned. Regardless of whether Joe covered up with Curley et al or perjured himself about his knowledge of the 1998 incident and regardless to whom he reported it at Penn State, he admitted that he knew of a sexual incident involving a child and yet Jerry went free. That's all the public needed to know to condemn Joe.

      Joe's reputation was shattered back in November when the Grand Jury testimony of MM and Joe relating to this conversation was released. Joe convicted himself in the public's mind; Freeh had nothing to do with that.

      It may give Joe's supporters some comfort to imagine that MM persuaded Joe to make a false statement to the Grand Jury, but nobody else is going to accept an imaginary conversation exonerating Joe.

    5. Im sorry, but I just had to post this after "Unknown" made that comment

  7. When both Joe and MM mentioned job opportunities I found it curious but generally coincidence.

    However, when the date changed, I believe it became significant. On that weekend Kenny Jackson (coach/player)a man valued by Joe announced his move to the Steelers.

    Was Joe suspicious about MM's motives? Did he delay his call to Tim because he knew that they would be meeting anyway to discuss staff?

    Did MM have visions of becoming needed when a major vacancy just opened ?

    Most important was that Joe was told 2002 when he testified. If he had known the real weekend, it may have helped him focus. Since he probably remembered the weekend Jackson left

  8. John, my husband has questioned McQuery's testimony since the beginning. The summary and analysis you have done so well has been a discussion point for us for months. It just makes sense--no alarms went off because the information provided did not warrant an alarm. Why has the BoT failed to examine this? They were too quick and willing to accept blame on the University and boot out Paterno and Spanier. Sure smells like Corbett. Also, note that anything that is published about him being involved, the articles based on the theory of a child sex ring in TSM for wealthy PA politicians and businessmen, the articles about Corbett's team or him orchestrating events...they all do not make it to the major news....they languish and are squelched. Now, for me...that is the cover-up here.

  9. Two small points... and they may not make any difference, but I think the details are important, if you're going to use "the little stuff" to point to the big stuff (if that makes any sense).
    You said: "The next day he spoke about what he saw to his father and his father’s boss Dr. Dranov. " - I believe the consistent testimony is this was the SAME night of the incident.

    You state: ...[Mike] wrote an email to friends ... saying that he had indeed broken up the encounter.

    My understanding of that email is that it said "I made sure it stopped" (or something along those lines...) - nothing that said HE stopped it.
    All details must be correct... or you lose credibility. You may not think that's important, and it may not matter to your "theory", but I believe it to be incredibly important if you expect to be taken seriously. I'm tired of any media, or "amateur investigators" in this case throwing around erroneous information (no matter how "minor"), or leaving out information, so if you want the "masses" to read it, or the "truth" to come out, get it right the first time, and be upfront with all the information.

  10. John, you are right that McQueary's belief that he witnessed something sexual is based entirely on the 2 to 3 'rhythmic' slapping sounds that he heard in the corridor before even entering the locker room. Dr. Dranov, who he talked to the same night as the shower incidence, testified in the pergury preliminary hearing that each time he asked McQueary if he saw anything sexual he kept talking about the slapping sounds. Dr. Dranov concluded he did not see anything sexual and recommended that he report it to Joe instead of the police. When McQueary spoke to Joe the next day, by both his and Joe's description, McQueary did not go into detail. What I interpret this as meaning is that McQueary told Joe he thought it was of a sexual nature, but not the details of why he thought it was sexual. In other words, he did not tell Joe about that the 3 slapping sounds are what lead him to believe it was sexual. When he gave the full version to Curly and Shultz, they concluded, just as Dr Dranov had, that McQueary did not see anything sexual and the 3 slapping sounds were more consistent with horse play than anything sexual. While Joe testified that he understood what McQueary told him was of a sexual nature, that does not mean he would not have been able to accept an alternate explanation that it had simply been horse play. I think it is highly likely that Curly told Joe that him and Shultz concluded it was just horseplay. In addition, McQueary testified in the pergury hearing that Joe had asked him several times in the following months how he was doing. McQueary gave no indication that he was dissatisfied with how things turned out. Based on this, why would Joe do anything more?

  11. So if I'm understanding correctly, the AG DID know the identity of Victim 2 but didn't call him to testify because they felt his story would not match McQueary's. So, if the AG had enough evidence and victims to charge Sandusky with hundreds of counts of abuse without using Victim 2, why did the Grand Jury presentment focus almost entirely on Victim 2 and MM's testimony about what he saw. They didn't need it to get him convicted. And, given the fact that it's entirely possible that the AG will be unable to get convictions of Schultz/Curley once MM is cross examined, WHO was behind the AG's decision to indict Schultz/Curley. If they didn't indict those two individuals for perjury, a very difficult case to prove, they'd have still been able to convict Sandusky. It's very curious as to what the real motivations were for the AG.

  12. Mike attended grad school at PSU the same time I was there. I had many classes with him, and I can assure you he is a standup guy. He should be considered a hero for standing up and speaking out about what he witnessed, especially when Mike had so much to lose.

    1. Marc,

      If Mike truly witnessed or thought he heard a sexual assault how could he leave that kid with Sandusky...I truly don't think Mike would have left a kid who was just sexually abused(No hero would). I don't know how Mike could have looked anyone in the eye and say he didn't help a kid who was raped. How could Mike over the next 8 years be seen at 2nd Mile functions and be OK with Sandusky. Personally I think the attorney general coaxed Mike into giving a better story to help the a.g. make a case.

  13. Marc,

    I can sympathize with you. While I've never met Mr. McQueary, I have known someone who was mercilessly crucified in the media. (Bud Dwyer)

    I also have family who directly experienced Joe Paterno "standing up for the small guy". My mother was a grad student in the '70s when Joe Pa defended the budgets of a lot of "minor" sports programs from an unscrupulous basketball coach and an AD willing to turn the other way. I can't go in to details about that without double-checking with her. It was a story I heard at the dinner table when I was a kid and one of the reasons why she insisted that PSU "was a different football program". Basically, Joe Pa sat in on a meeting of coaches, even though no one would ever have touched the football budget. He took time out of his schedule to defend the budgets of the fencing program, swimming program and such. He was a "standup guy" in the eyes of my mother.

    That's why McQueary's story is so difficult to understand. I needed a lot more certainty in McQueary's testimony, and Joe Pa's for that matter, to be convinced that Paterno covered things up to protect his reputation. I think it's sad that McQueary's is the testimony that convicted Joe in the "court of public opinion", as from all accounts, Joe Pa was concerned about his well being after the event.

    No offense to McQueary, or to Freeh for that matter. I don't know them personally, but McQueary's inconsistency and Freeh's liberal interpretation of scant evidence have led to the universal condemnation of a man I admired... a man I often saw walking to campus from my dorm room window when I lived in North Halls going to PSU. It's a little hard for me to consider McQueary a hero. I could accept him being a good guy in over his head, though...

    1. McQueary is not a good guy. Sandusky was the criminal, but McQueary was the hit man who took out Joe Paterno and PSU. Good guys stand up in the face of adverse conditions, not turn and run and call daddy! Good guys tell the truth! Good guys do not sue a university where they made a terrific living by being a football coach when they are the one who abetted the defamation of a university and a person who was a good man, Joe Paterno.

    2. I have a feeling that Mike is caught between a rock and a hard place. I'm sure he's appalled at bringing down the university when he thought he was being a hero and bringing down a child molester. I think the dubious person in all of this might be Linda Kelly (or other @ the Attorney General's office). If Mike told his dad and Dr. Dranov the truth about what he witnessed in the shower at the time, neither of them felt it enough to go to the Cops with (plus he sees JS at charity functions soon after and doesn't seem to be too wierded out by him). 10 years later, he tries to convict a child abuser - and possibly has lied on the stand (not that I can prove it or anything) in order to get JS behind bars. So, which is it to be? jail time, and allowing that sort of thing get into JS's appeal which might turn JS loose again? or keeping silent?