Monday, December 9

EILEEN MORGAN: McQueary Credibility Chart

Mike McQueary's Credibility Chart

-By Eileen Morgan

Everything you need to know about McQueary's ever evolving account of February 9, 2001.  This chart takes you from the beginning up to and including the most recent hearing on July 29, 2013.

You will see the story change as McQueary's needs change to benefit him.  This needs to be shared far and wide because this is the epicenter of how the Sandusky Scandal became the Penn State Scandal.

Please access the chart at the link below.

Need a last minute Christmas gift?


  1. Thank you, Eileen. Your work is always laid out in such an organized way. Though the Sandusky story is complex, your efforts really make it relatively simple to see. Those who continue to throw out the bogus versions of events in this story must not have the interest, time, and/or mental discipline to carefully read your, Ray's, and John's work on all this.

    Two questions:
    1. Did Cynthia Baldwin sit in on Sandusky Grand Jury testimony other than with Schultz and Curley... whether under the guise of PSU attorney, individual attorney, or some other justification? If not, how does she explain this? Her story is that she was with GS and TC as the PSU rep. So why wouldn't she likewise have been present when other key PSU employees testified, such as Spanier, Harmon, Paterno, and McQueary?

    2. Can anyone who's been harmed by the Sandusky Scandal being turned into a PSU Scandal hold Dr Dranov accountable for not coming forward to refute the false narrative? Isn't he abetting the prosecution's (and media's) campaign to lay blame and punishment on Penn State? I was taught that in a legal sense "Omission means Admission", and one could be held legally liable for omitting exculpatory evidence.

    1. It would have been nice if Dranov had made public his grand jury testimony when the grand jury presentment was released in Nov. 2011 but I can understand why he stayed out of it. It is not a good idea to anger the Attorney General's office when it is so easy for them to charge people, lie in grand jury presentments and hide exculpatory evidence.

      Dranov's grand jury testimony was leaked to the media before the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing in Dec. 2011. Maybe that came from Dranov. I don't think it was ever explained where it came from.

  2. Mike4949,
    It is high time you stop making FALSE STATEMENTS about legal reporting requirements of the 2001 incident. All you are doing is proving to the world that your an ignoramus.

    Here is the law. It requires a report to DPW, not the police.

    § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.
    (a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

    §Moreover, the PA Public Welfare Code is clear that the COUNTY AGENCY, an arm of the Department of Public Welfare, is the SOLE civild agency responsible for investigating reports of abuse.

    3490.54. Independent investigation of reports.
    Except for reports investigated by the Department, the county agency shall investigate and make independent determinations on reports of suspected child abuse, regardless of another investigation conducted by another agency, the court OR THE POLICE and regardless of whether or not the person making the report identified himself. A county agency may rely on an investigation of substantially the same allegations by a law enforcement agency to support the county agency’s finding regarding a child abuse report. This reliance does not limit the duties required of the county agency by section 6368 of the CPSL (relating to investigation of reports).

    So, you are a doubly ignorant. A call to 9-1-1 is not required by the reporting laws and the DPW, who is responsible for investigation, is not required to call the police.

    You can stop posting your nonsense and I will delete any post you make that continues to spout these false statements.

  3. Becky,
    1. Baldwin represented (or should I say, attended the grand jury with) Graham Spanier. She did not go with Joe Paterno because he got his own representation. I do not believe she went with McQueary and have not seen any reporting to that effect. She would not have been privy to Harmon's testimony because he retired from PSU in 2005. The fact that she didn't attend with Harmon but did with Schultz is troublesome because Schultz too was retired from PSU in January 2011 and did not re-employ until September 2011. She should not have been the conduit for his subpoena. That is something that Kane/Moulton should include in their investigation because it appears to be a procedural error.

    2. Dr. Dranov testified to what he knew at the grand jury and at the trial. His testimony's exclusion from the grand jury presentment was decided by the OAG, not him. However, he was free to correct or add to the "record" at any time. I suspect he didn't do so out of his own personal well-being (there are others like him out there too). I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe there is a legal liability issue for him. I will say that some of the others who have remained silent - and who will eventually be outed - won't have much of a life to look forward to. They will be reviled by PSU alumni and much of the public.

    If they were smart, they would come forward before they get outed, tell the public what they know, and apologize for putting the University through this. Their conduct has been shameful, but I think people would forgive them if they came forward to set the record straight.

    1. Ray - Didn't Baldwin have a friend in the Attorney General's office? I read that Penn State got advance notice that Curley and Schultz were going to be charged.

      Baldwin certainly could have talked to anyone involved including Mike McQueary and Harmon, if they would talk with her. The Attorney General's website says that witnesses before a grand jury are free to talk about their testimony with anyone.

  4. I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record in relation to my collective posts. But doesn't PA need some kind of federal intervention to break this dance of deception it is doing around itself concerning the Second Mile/Sandusky issue? There just doesn't seem like there's any hope for the actual truth to be released about PA state government involvement and probable enabling of the abuse committed by Sandusky. It's been sensationally presented to the rest of the country as a PSU issue by irresponsible media going on two years now.
    What can be done to get those wrongly accused actual fair due process? And what can be done to get PA state government put on trial for wrongfully placing blame on the university?

    Since when is a former employer responsible for the actions of a child molester? Because that's all that PSU is to Sandusky when theses alleged crimes of his are occurring. How can rationally thinking people blame a former employer, or even the current employer, of a sociopath for their crimes? Suppose Jeffery Dahmer worked at Sears or some other store during the time period he was raping and killing boys. Would the media have run stories with headlines like, "Sears CEO supports the raping and killing of boys"? NO, of course not, because there was no corrupt state government abusing its authority and willfully handing lies to the media. I've said this time and time again, there is an absolutely shocking abuse of power on a state governmental level involved in the Sandusky scandal. For our federal government to stand back and let PA keep abusing state power is just insane. We are seeing doctors, judges, senators, governor(s), lawyers, etc. skirting laws, ethics, morality, common sense, and the truth to avoid acknowledging that PA government is guilty in the Sandusky issue.

    The more this goes on, the more it makes the state of PA like some kind of lawless exception to the rest of the country.
    Moulton is a former Fed, but he is now just an independent like Freeh is. And if he's just an independent, what are the chances he will only find what his employer(the state of PA) wants him to find? I guess my point is, even with Moulton, as in the Freeh "report", we still only have the state investigating and protecting itself.

    Any ideas as to why the Feds are only investigating Second Mile and not corruption surrounding Sandusky and Second Mile within the PA government?

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Mike4949,
    Repeating the same flawed argument = DELETE.

    BTW, if this federal law that trumps the PA Statute exists, please post it. In other words, put up or shut up (or be DELETED).

  7. Truthseeker,
    As much as everyone wants the truth to be revealed and those who perpetrated this fraudulent perspection of PSU to be facing charges, you must understand that revealing a scandal of such enormous magnitude takes a lot of time and meticulous evidence gathering to ensure the crimes involved can be successfully prosecuted.

    It is my understandfing that the scope of the Federal investigation, focused on The Second Mile, was determined/reached under an agreement with the PA Attorney General. I am not sure if that scope is hard and fast or if it could be changed based on the evidence that is uncovered during the course of the investigation. I suspect that the Feds will go where the evidence leads them and if that means a change in scope, then a change in scope will be sought.

    I also understand that the person heading the Federal investigation, Gordon Zubrod, is thorough and meticulous. He prosecuted the "Kids for Cash" scandal in Luzerne County, which took down two judges. Zubrod has no qualms about taking down goverment offiials.

  8. Mike4949,
    All you have to do to KEEP a post on this page is make the LEGAL CITATION that required Dranov, Paterno, or anyone else to make a 9-1-1 call after getting a SECOND-HAND report of suspected child abuse from Mike McQueary.

    Anything other than that = DELETE.

    So, do us all a favor and cite the law requiring the 9-1-1 call.

    Also, after you do that, please provide the citation regarding that child molesters like Sandusky keep their victims captive and repeatedly rape them until the police intervene.

    Finally, please tell all of us how effective the call to the police was in November 2008 in protecting Victim 9 from Sandusky's sexual abuse. As you recall, Victim 9 stated his victimization occurred past his sixteenth birthday, in July 2009, a full 8 months after police knew that Sandusky was indicated as a child molester.

  9. Tim Berton,
    Baldwin alleged that someone in the OAG offices did her a favor and let her know the Schultz and Curley indictments were planned for release on November 12, 2011. I don't know if the protocol is that the OAG keeps the indictment a secret or if it informs people who are affected in advance.

    Baldwin was free to talk to anyone who testified at the grand jury and they to her, however, I do not believe that she should have been or was the conduit for the delivery of the subpoenas to McQueary or Harmon. I've seen no records indicating so. As such, I don't think she "represented" either of them at the grand jury.

  10. Mike4949,
    Let's face it Mike, you can't cite the law because it doesn't exist. I've made the correct citations. BTW, you can check the criminal dockets for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and find the same citation on each docket.

    1. Okay Ray, man up. If that had been you in Shower 2001 and you suspected a child was being molested by an adult, what would you have done based on your common knowledge of the law.

    2. I would have actually LOOKED into the shower to see what was actually happening before doing anything else. Once I determined what was happening, then I would have taken the appropriate action.

      BTW, I'm not quite sure what would make me believe a child was being molested if I was on my way into a shower, heard three slaps, and then heard nothing but water running after that. Also, I don't believe that a child molester would pick the ONLY spot in the shower room that is visible to someone who looks into the shower.

      Just as in the janitor incident, the physical evidence throws the entire scenario into doubt.

  11. Mike4949,
    Again, you have posted something that is so factually challenged that it required deletion.
    First, the janitor incident has been disproven based on physical and temporal evidence. But more than that, the incident in question defies how a serial pedophile like Sandusky commits his crimes (as did the McQueary incident).

    The FBI manual on investigating pedophiles contains an excellent description of pillar of the community/serial pedophiles. One of the reasons why they are "serial" offenders is because they do not commit their crimes in public places - thus avoid getting caught! They are extremely careful and their acts are committed in such a way that they have plausible deniability. In other words, Sandusky would not be fellating a boy (the janitor case) in a public shower because there would be no way to explain that away.

    The pedophile who was prosecuted in this case was not Sandusky, but the characterization of the "old man in a raincoat" pedophile. You apparently fell for the prosecutor's false characterization. There would not be 24/7 victimization going on either. Read the Clemente Report and Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis. You should also read the Harvard study on pedophiles, which states the vast majority pedophiles do not engage in anal sex (another strike against your mistaken belief of what McQueary saw) and even oral sex is rare.

    As for Joe Paterno, he is completely irrelevant to your scenario. Paterno received a report 12 hours after the incident and there was no reason for him to call the police. No one, not McQueary and not even Joe Paterno, can tell you what McQueary said at Paterno's kitchen table that February morning in 2001.

    Finally, anyone who knows the facts of this case knows that the people who failed the children were not at Penn State, but at The Second Mile and at DPW.

    The 2001 case is a red herring. The fatally flawed 1998 investigation, that was scuttled by DPW after four days, is the reason why Sandusky perpetrated his crimes for over a decade

  12. To anyone with specific knowledge of what occurs within an agency that receives actual 911 calls,

    Scenario: A 911 call reporting suspicion of child sexual abuse is answered by a 911 operator.

    1. Is the legally required response to this call uniform among states in the US?

    2. What is the legally required response to this call in PA?

    3. Is the actual response consistent among 911 operators?

    4. Are the actions of whoever receives the report from the 911 operator of such a call legally proscribed?

    5. Are the actual actions of those who receive the 911 operator's report of such a call uniform and consistent with the law?

    6. What can a PA citizen expect to occur in response to her/ his call to 911 to report suspicion of child sexual abuse?

    It would be easier for me to remember "Always call 911" rather than "For some potentially dangerous events witnessed, call DPW; for others, call 911".

    Perhaps there would be more reporting of suspicions of child sexual abuse if the 911 system WAS the legal recipient of such calls.

  13. Becky,
    The proposed PA legislation includes a 6-1-1 number for reports of child abuse. Note, that it is for CHILD abuse, not just child sexual abuse.

    I would suspect that the ONLY time a person would call 9-1-1 in the case of child abuse is if they believed a child to be in imminent danger - a parent beating a child in public, Michael Jackson dangling a kid over the balcony, or some other situation where children's safety was at issue.

    The current child abuse reporting law in PA is written for situations where there is suspicion of abuse after the fact, typically through observation of physical injury or mental distress. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were wrongly charged under the law because they were not in the care of said child victim, nor did they have the requisite training nor were they in a profession that would cause them to have the training to suspect abuse. Even though Spanier had first hand experience as an abused child, he was not a mandatory reporter under the 2001 law.

  14. Mike4949,
    Reality check for you. Go by what was OMITTED from the grand jury presentment, then you might have a shot at understanding what happened.

    Omitted - Dranov's testimony: Mike didn't see anything except a kid's head poke out from around a corner and then Sandusky & the child exiting the shower.

    Omitted - Spanier's statement that he was told the incident happened around a corner out of sight. Amazing. The same story as Dranov.

    Logic: Curley and Schultz did not speak to Dranov before speaking to Spanier, nor did they speak with McQueary. The only person they spoke with was Paterno. Therefore, Paterno told them McQueary didn't see anything because the incident happened around a corner.

    Physical Evidence: The corner that the child poked his head around was the wall nearest the lockers. That area is NOT visible to McQueary as he glanced into the mirror.

    Conclude: Mike lied about where the incident took place and about what he saw.

  15. My question here is about what an actual response would be to a 911 dispatcher's notification of a call reporting suspicion of child sexual abuse. And does this response always meet the legal requirements?

    I.e., is calling 911 the best way to help a child potentially at risk of sexual abuse?

    I'd love to hear from those with actual experience of receiving notifications from a 911 dispatcher. Maybe the 911 system is not intended or designed to be an effective way to help children in potential danger of sex abuse. Maybe calling 911 would delay effective action to protect the child.

  16. Becky,
    I recently spoke with a person who called in a report of kidnapping and child sexual abuse. The person's neighbor was the perpetrator and the reporter could hear the child screaming for help. The reporter also heard the perpetrator discussing the sale of the child (human trafficking) to a prospective purchaser.

    The reporter called the police. The police drove to the residence of the perpetrator, parking in front of the building in full view of the perp. Walked up and knocked on the door, asked the perp a few questions then left. This process repeated on two or three occasions.

    From this incident, as well as the police's performance in taking 3 years to arrest Sandusky, calling a policing authority in Pennsylvania doesn't appear to be helpful in protecting the child.

    I am also aware of another incident where the police were called by a child victim and instead of protecting the child, they arrested her (and took no action against the abusive parent). The "good" parent in this case also called the police, who told that parent unless he had "blood evidence or a dead body," they couldn't help.

    In PA, the police are right there with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny in terms of providing legitimate protection for children.

    1. About 4:32 into this clip ( a prosecutor admits to knowing what Sandusky was doing to Aaron Fisher but did nothing for 3 years because there was not enough evidence to prosecute and according to him, Sandusky was God. Who let Aaron Fisher down, Joe Paterno or the legal system? According to what the media pukes out, Joe should have done more; I say, the people whose job it is to protect children should be held accountable.

  17. That's what I suspected. According to Wikipedia, the 911 system is funded in some uniform way across the country. In contrast, the entities that are intended to RESPOND to a notification by a 911 dispatcher are funded at local or state levels, and so are not equally capable of providing adequate responses.

    Thank you so much for your time and patience. And for quite the education! Perhaps the proposed 611 system in PA can serve as the Santa Claus in all this!

    Best regards,

  18. You're welcome, Becky.

    There is some renewed media interest in this particular part of the Sandusky scandal. Both the police and the child protection agencies are failing the kids in Pennsylvania.

    Kane has established a new child predator unit that will be beefed up and contained in the OAG's office. Hopefully, we will no longer have situations where narcotics agents are working CSA cases and taking years to figure out that a pedophile needs access to kids -- not buildings -- to perpetrate his crimes.

  19. FROM MHENTZ (accidentally deleted)
    "In other words, Sandusky would not be fellating a boy (the janitor case) in a public shower because there would be no way to explain that away."

    If we were to assume that the vic 8 episode was factual then not only was Sandusky fellating a boy in an open shower stall in a public place but he was also doing so at a time when, based on his many years of experience with the schedules regarding the football facilites, he'd have been almost certain to know he was performing this act at the same time the janitors where making their rounds. This is the same guy that Jim Clemente claimed was in of the top 1% of all pedophiles for being most adept at avoiding exposure. Not only is the victim 8 episode clearly fraudulent, it was done in such a hamfisted manner that you have to wonder about the IQ level of the members of the OAG who concocted it. What kind of morons do we have running the PA-OAG that not only are they corrupt, but they're so STUPID about it? On other thing; Clemente has completely lost me. He's no different than Louis Freeh and no better. In a very real sense, he's a part of the cover up

  20. mhentz,
    I e-mailed Clemente about the V8 incident and some of the other questionable incidents in this case. At first, he stood by his initial report he did for the Paterno family. Then I sent him a link to my Report 3.

    At that point, Jim came to realize that the prosecutor's case was exactly as I characterized it -- the prosecution of the "old man in the crumpled raincoat" child molester, rather than the serial, pillar of the community offender, Sandusky. As a result of that revelation, Jim admitted that some of the testimony by the victims was not accurate -- as a means of giving them an "out" for being compliant victims. Simply put, a victim who admitted he was compliant gets far less sympathy than a victim who said he yelled and screamed for help (V9).

  21. It doesn't serve the cause of child welfare well to have false narratives about Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and Penn State administrators still believed by so many. Child welfare professionals have a high-profile opportunity here to seriously advance the public's knowledge and understanding of child sexual abuse/ victimization.

    For example, John Zeigler has come to think that JS is a "chaste pedophile". Someone who can do much harm to a young person without ever committing actual intercourse. Who knew such a character existed?? Parents? Teachers? Coaches? Police? Our kids?

    Jim Clemente is in a unique position to significantly contribute to the protection of children everywhere. With his own high profile, his well-regarded analysis of the Freeh Report, and his personal and professional credentials with child sexual victimization, Jim could produce a journal article/ book/ TV program... some piece of work that thoroughly explores the lesser-known types of pedophilia, the types that are less likely to be recognized. What are signs? What are safe boundaries? What are most effective responses... of kids, of adults, of police?

    JS may or may not have had actual sexual intercourse with young boys, but apparently there is a type of pedophile who generally remains chaste with his victims. The Sandusky/ Paterno/ Penn State story certainly provides a high-profile opportunity for a professional such as Jim Clemente to educate us all.

    1. John Ziegler was basing his theory on this Harvard newsletter:

      From the article: "Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way. Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals. Oral, anal, or vaginal penetration is less common."

      The Harvard description defies the common beliefs on pedophilia by the general public (and our friendly troll, Mike4949).

      I have often cited Ken Lanning's manual "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" which is an excellent source of information on the different types of child molesters and their habits/behaviors. Jim Clemente often references Lanning in his writings.

      Clemente pretty much summed it up this way: if an adult wants to spend more time with your child than you do, that should send up a red flag. Also, In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child.

    2. rdk: I couldn't agree more with you about the opportunities that are being missed by high profile professionals associated with this Sandusky mess. As you stated, Clemente could do more than he has. I also believe Dick Thornburgh could be doing more. These two guys, Thornburgh and Clemente were paid by the Paternos to help rebut the Freeh "report". And I made the point earlier in this blog that these two guys just sort of went away after they earned their money. In fact, Thornburgh seems to do a complete 180 degree turn and comes out endorsing Corbett for reelection! I guess Thornburgh looked around and thought, "well no one's offering me anymore nice deals, so I'll just support the guy that pushed Freeh on PSU".

      This kind of "say one thing and do another" seems to be a trademark of this whole scandal. It's as if Corbett possesses some sort of supernatural intimidation factor over everyone in PA. Which, if that's true, shows the level of group-think cowardice amongst leaders in PA.

      I say to people that have been paid to help, it's now time to put the money aside and help because it's the right thing to do.

    3. Stepping up to do the right thing could begin simply enough by Mr John McQueary, PA and Dr J Dranov speaking publically NOW about their conversations with Mike M beginning in Feb 2001.

      It's ironic that Mr M received his medical training at Duke University, where he's honored for his founding efforts of our nationwide Physician Assistant program ( It's reasonable to expect someone who has devoted his career to helping others be well would want to do the morally right thing here. Particularly when that someone's own alma mater has suffered the injustice that his son's alma mater now suffers.

      As I read the Pennsylvania law regarding the reporting of child abuse (, reporting requirements AND instructions vary depending on your job. AS IMPORTANT, they vary depending on who was in the actual presence of the child. While Mr M and Dr D are both mandated reporters, they neither saw the child nor were they Mike's supervisors. The legal requirement, I believe, was for Mike to report to his supervisor. Somewhere up the line, above Mike, someone is required to report in writing to DPW. Moral right action aside, it seems that Mike's and Paterno's actions were legally correct.

      My big question though is with the actions of Mr McQueary and Dr Dranov. They didn't see the child, but they did receive the initial report. While they may not have been legally required to make the report to DPW (because they were not supervisors of the witness, Mike), their sitting on the sidelines while Joe Paterno's stellar legacy and PSU's entire reputation is destroyed is reprehensible. If not legally then certainly morally.

      I think it's time for John McQueary, PA and physician Jon Dranov to think of their own lives' work in the medical profession and their own legacies.

      The truth in all this is coming out. Does each man really want his legacy to be that of someone who stayed on the sidelines while innocent lives and careers were destroyed?

    4. Under the 2001 PA Law, the legal requirement was for The Second Mile to call DPW. No one at PSU was in the caretaker of the child. Sandusky was a contract employee of TSM. PSU reported the incident to Sandusky's employer, who was mandated to report it under the law because the alleged Victim was a Second Mile participant.

      PSU was not covered under the reporting statutes for schools in 2001. Only public schools and private schools serving students K through age 18, who have not yet earned their diploma are covered under that statute.

      I agree with you that if Mike really did report an act of molestation to his father and Dr. Dranov, they should have immediately called the police. But the evidence in this case shows Mike didn't tell anyone that he saw a molestation in progress back in 2001.

    5. I actually don't know when or if someone in Pennsylvania is supposed to call the police with a suspicion of child sexual abuse. My quick read of the law leads me to think that the call is to DPW.

      My point, though, is that regardless of what Mike M said to Mr M and Dr D the night of the Feb 2001 incident, both of these men are medical professionals, presumably trained as mandated reporters, and presumably caring of the well-being of people. The practice of medicine is the profession of these two men! They're supposed to care about the wellness of their fellow human beings. At least about their neighbors, patients, and others in the State College community.

      Yet they have let that very community be ripped apart, the legacy of a remarkable man be decimated, and PSU be ridiculed across the US. Each of them could have stepped up and explained to the public exactly why they advised Mike M as they did. Take questions, answer fully, assume responsibility for THEIR role in all this. They, after all, are the ones who sent this mess to the Paternos' doorstep!

      It is never too late to try and make amends. I'd say that John McQueary, PA and Dr J Dranov owe their community an honest conversation. Who knows, perhaps the reasoning they used that night in Feb 2001 would make sense to a lot of people. Maybe we'd all sit back and say "Oh".

      Maybe the focus could then finally turn to the real reasons Sandusky was free to victimize for so many years.

  22. These two men are Way overweight baffons. The cannot be much use as healers/physicians to anyone. + they are self protective, emotional cowards.
    They responded wrongly but true to their characters, I think.

  23. I'm never sure precisely what people are referring to when they use the word "sodomy". After reading the fascinating explanation of this term on Wikipedia, I understand my confusion. It is an ambiguous word, with different meanings in different cultures.

    One passage jumped out, though, with perhaps striking relevance to Mike McQueary and his role in turning the Sandusky case into a Penn State scandal. The passage, and its reference, posits that an observer of what is perceived as "sodomy" may actually deconstruct the actual event then reconstruct a version that somehow fits his notions of sexuality.

    This passage and reference are below:

    Sodomy - Wikipedia
    ... "While religion and the law have had a fundamental role in the historical definition and punishment of sodomy, sodomitical texts present considerable opportunities for ambiguity and interpretation. Sodomy is both a real occurrence and an imagined category. In the course of the eighteenth-century what is identifiable as sodomy often becomes identified with effeminacy, for example, or in opposition to a discourse of manliness. In this regard, Ian McCormick has argued that 'an adequate and imaginative reading involves a series of intertextual interventions in which histories becomes stories, fabrications and reconstructions in lively debate with, and around, 'dominant' heterosexualities ... Deconstructing what we think hwe see may well involve reconstructing ourselves in surprising and unanticipated ways.'[12]"

    [12] Ian McCormick, Secret Sexualities: A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing. (London and New York: Routledge), p. 9, p. 11.

    1. Reliable sources say Mike McQueary's story about what he saw in the shower and his credibility, in general, will be obliterated in the near future.