Wednesday, December 5

Analysis: Spanier’s Statement Indicates McQueary Changed His Story in 2010

Spanier’s  and Dranov’s accounts of McQueary’s stories are consistent – McQueary could not see what Sandusky and the child were doing in the shower.

Dranov’s Testimony

Most informed followers of the Sandusky case believe Dr. Dranov’s version of the 9 February 2001 shower incident -- that was heard in the closest time proximity to McQueary witnessing the event --  to likely be the most accurate. 
The key aspects of Dr. Dranov’s  version are: 
“And when he came in, he heard what he described as sexual sounds”
“He looked toward the shower and a young boy looked around.  He made eye contact with the boy.”
“I asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened.  He said no.”
“An arm reached out and pulled the boy back.”
“..and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out of it and it was Jerry Sandusky.”

In Dranov’s version of the event, McQueary does not see Sandusky until he exits the shower.  That would be consistent with Sandusky using the shower stall nearest the doorway and obscured from view by a small wall.  In other words, Sandusky and the child were around a corner and out of McQueary’s view (see diagram below).

Spanier’s Statement

“More than a decade ago, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz asked to catch me after another meeting to give me a “heads up” about a matter.  Looking back at my calendar for what is presumed to be February 2001, I surmise that meeting to have been on Monday, February 12, at about 2:30PM…
..The report was that Jerry Sandusky was seen in an athletic locker room facility showering with one of his Second Mile youth, after a workout, and that they were “horsing around” (or “engaged in horseplay”).  It was reported that the staff member was not sure what he saw because it was around a corner and indirect.


Here is the timeline of reporting:
Friday, Feb. 9:   McQueary tells John McQueary and Dr. Dranov (around a corner)
Sat, Feb 10th:    McQueary tells Paterno
Sun, Feb 11th:   Paterno tells Curley and Schultz
Mon, Feb 12th:  Curley and Schultz tell Spanier (around a corner)
Mon, Feb 19th*:  McQueary tells Curley and Schultz
Given that Curley and Schultz told Spanier on Monday, 12 February 2001, that the incident happened around a corner and out of sight one can reasonably conclude they got the information from Paterno, who got it from McQueary.  By deduction, McQueary told Paterno the incident happened around a corner.

Changing Testimony

According to a source, Paterno, in late 2010 or early 2011, met with McQueary to refresh his memory about 2001.  It appears likely that McQueary left out the detail that he couldn't see around a corner and provided Paterno with the enhanced version that included hugging in the shower. 
So, where did this version come from?  

Most likely, is was from trooper Rossman, who interviewed McQueary in late 2010.
Trooper Rossman, and his partner, Corporal Leiter,  were caught red-handed at trial for lying about suggesting testimony to potential victims.  During the interview of Victim 4, Rossman and Leiter, left on a tape recorder during a break when Victim 4 was out of the room.  They discussed with the victims attorney, Ben Andreozzi, that they could suggest that Sandusky operated in a pattern of progression with his victims.  After the discussion with Andreozzi, they told Victim 4 that they had nine other adults who had admitted to victimization and had suffered through a progression of events.
Leiter too had made similar suggestions to the mother of Victim 6, stating that they had 10 other victims and 400 counts of abuse when he interviewed her in late 2010.  At the time, they had only two victims, Aaron Fisher, and the unidentified Victim 2.  So, Leiter was being untruthful with the mother.
Based on the modus operandi of Rossman and Leiter, it is reasonable to conclude that Rossman suggested embellishments to McQueary to enhance his story.
The $1 million dollar question is why would McQueary do this?


  1. Ray,

    Again, many thanks for your continued work on this issue and your analysis here.

    I've always suspected that McQueary has had the heat put on him by the AG, and perhaps others, to embellish his story to the benefit of their case and the detriment of Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno. If they really wanted the truth, they'd have given immunity from prosecution to McQueary and a couple of others where any convictions would be minimal.

    Now that Sandusky has been convicted there's not much chance of that, unless the newly elected AG really wants to find out what really happened in this case.

    Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath!

  2. Jeff,
    Keep the faith, but don't hold your breath. Before all is said and done, this will be declared a mistrial. I've cited two cases of perjury above...and there are several more cases of it from the trial.


  3. Ray,

    I just read an item over on Breitbart of the Top 10 Excerpts from the Zimmerman case and his lawsuit against NBC "News". All I could think of was substituting "football culture" in place of racism; ESPN, or whoever for NBC; and the Pennsylvania AG and Penn State BOT in appropriate places and we'd have the Sandusky case pretty well summed up.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. I get it. Attack the people personally if they don't agree with your ideas that basicallyt DEFLECT the responsibility of the PS "leadership" to have done something about Sandusky. "Other people could have reported it". "Other people were fooled". Vague inconsisencies and conspiracy theory logic.
    JOE PA and the other gentlemen are CRIMINALS. Joe was just lucky to have died before being dragged through all this.

    1. Philboyds - Please justify to me why Jack Raykovitz has not been indicted yet. This whole thing smells, and at the very least if an attempt were made to place some blame on the CEO of 2Mile, then perhaps I can have some faith in The System.

      I also want to know why there is such silence coming from 2Mile on all of this.

  6. Philboyds,
    Nowhere does this blogpost deflect blame for not reporting a report that didn't rise to the level of a crime. What did Mike see in 2001? Likely nothing. What did Mike say in 2001? It depends who you ask. Mike told different stories to different people -- that is an undeniable fact, considering that his story changed right after the grand jury presentment.

    Do you want to discuss fact or are you only interested in spewing hate?