Friday, October 14


Mike McQueary - Joe Paterno - Jerry Sandusky 
by Barry Bozeman - UT (Tenn) Grad with no ties to PSU. Liberal Dem UT fan born on campus - attended UT games as an infant - active in campus politics as class & frat pres., -no shred of bias toward PSU or Paterno. Like Pat Summitt at UT, the winningest coach in college basketball history with a statue as well, Joe was an iconic figure. Pat became the face of UT like Joe was the face of PSU. I created this SMSS site because I saw a grievous injustice at work from a rabid media anxious to bring down a legend they worked so hard to create. 

Does McQueary deserve enmity and scorn as a coward who failed to protect a defenseless child? OR Is Mike McQueary a college football gambling cheat who bet on PSU football games as a player and coach losing thousands of dollars who sees a way out of his destroyed career as a coach nobody will ever hire? Or both? Or is Mike the "whistleblower" a public servant cast off by unscrupulous PSU administrators?

The eve of the McQueary "whistleblower" trial is an opportunity to take a fresh look at a massive store of information. This is some old and new information with a fresh take from my unbiased perception.  
This repetition of events may seem excessive to some. Going over the same ground becomes an exercise in futility as we seek an answer to how this could have happened to PSU and iconic Coach Paterno. If one thing seemed certain in Happy Valley, it would be the lasting unsullied reputation of the Hall of Fame Coach. The shock of the events of Nov 2011 stunned many PSU people into numb submission as Gov. Corbett and John Surma ambushed the Board of Trustees. 
That November 2011 Presentment by Attorney General Linda Kelly, with some damning testimony concerning a former coach in a staff locker room in 2002 (or was it 2001?) was incomprehensible. 
With all the available testimony from depositions, hearings and the Sandusky trial - things said by Mike McQueary, things Dr. Dranov claimed he said, and the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz versions - it is very difficult to imagine how McQueary can be considered credible. His versions of what happened one night some 14 (or was it 15*) years ago have changed often and have been related and misrelated too many times to count. 
*In fact, the prosecution had the date wrong by 13 months in the original Presentment:
"In court paperwork filed Monday, prosecutors say the alleged sexual incident the former assistant Penn State football coach claims to have seen between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. Instead, they wrote, new evidence shows it happened on 2/9/2001, about 13 months earlier."

McQueary testified to hearing "rhythmic sexual slapping sounds" in a staff locker room one winter night. And then, depending on which version of events now on the record from McQueary and family friend Dr. Dranov that you believe, McQueary either: 1) saw nothing but "heard sounds", 2) saw "something sexual" or "something extremely sexual", or 3) saw a "sexual assault" by Sandusky on a boy of about 10.
PA Attorney General Linda Kelly stood on a stage in Harrisburg with her posters of Jerry Sandusky - who retired as PSU coach in 1999, belside two hapless PSU administrators, Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz. Using these posters she accused these men of equal culpability with a serial pedophile. Sandusky, the creator of The Second Mile charity, was employed by TSM when this alleged assault occurred. This damning account was supposedly based on the words of Mike McQueary, and Linda Kelly presented this as Mike's account:
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught."
This staged AG Kelly news conference in Harrisburg touched off a firestorm of interest and a tsunami of media speculation. Initially, a tremendous amount of anger and accusation was pointed at Mike McQueary. How could a strong young former PSU QB watch a 10-year-old being anally raped by an old former coach and run away? Then the media focused outrage on the 'football culture of omnipotent demigod Paterno' and the administrators singled out by AG Kelly for charges. 

This was a PRESENTMENT I thought. Do these media people not get that a Presentment is the State laying out, in the most damaging terms possible, charges based on testimony never subjected to cross-examination, exculpatory evidence, or legal representation? Nor was it presented in full quotes - only a summary of the prosecution's chosen interpretation stated in the most damaging possible terms. I wrote this in An Outsiders View Nov. 2011.  

I was captivated, and I did not buy the AG's version of events despite the media's willingness to do so. But then on 11/9/11, the PSU Board of Trustees, threw iconic Joe Paterno and the PSU administrators under the bus in a stunningly stupid decision. Did they know something I did not? Well that's crazy I thought, of course, they did. 

Wasn't Gov. Corbett, the former AG, part of that Board? He would know what was coming. 

Some inside information from Corbett must have made this move to eliminate Joe and eventually the single member of the BOT who stood up for his administrators and the coach, the smart thing to do. I guess I'm just not that smart, I still had questions. Discussions concerning these events raged for days on PSU sports forums where my participation was almost constant. Information came to light that increased my doubt in the media's versions of events. 

But enough of the past - after 5 years of immersion in this situation we come to today and this attempt by Mike McQueary to wrest 5 million dollars from Penn State. 

below the break a Q&A 

Imagine yourself as the attorney with Mike McQueary on the stand and the reputation of Joe and PSU are at stake.


Each question below is already on the record testimony by Mike McQueary and you are the attorney asking these questions. 

ATTORNEY:So the 10-year-old boy was so small the "top of his head only reached Sandusky's pectoral muscles" ?
MM: YES - 
ATTORNEY: The boy's feet were on the floor while he was standing upright with hands on the wall? 
MM: YES -- 
ATTORNEY: The man you have identified as Jerry Sandusky was standing behind him?
ATTORNEY: With his feet on the floor and standing upright behind him with arms around the boy?
MM yes 
ATTORNEY: To you the boy appeared to be suffering what you said is "some kind of intercourse" from a 6' 200 plus pound former football coach?
MM: YES - 
ATTORNEY: There is no noise - no sound from either the man or the boy"?
MM: NO - 
ATTORNEY A small 10-year-old boy was suffering intercourse from a big old former coach and he was not crying out in pain or anguish from being sodomized and humiliated?
MM  No 
ATTORNEY But even when you observed a 10-year-old defenseless boy being sexually assaulted by an old football coach naked in that shower you did not go to that poor boy's aid and get the old coach off of him?
MM no
ATTORNEY You did not even let the boy know you were there if he needed your help?
MM no 
ATTORNEY Instead you turned away and went to put some shoes in your locker?
MM yes
ATTORNEY - And in order to get the coach to stop assaulting the boy all you could do is slam a locker door?
MM yes 
ATTORNEY - Then after you slam the locker door both the boy and Sandusky look directly in your eyes"? 
ATTORNEY:  Did Sandusky have an erection?
MM Not that I saw
ATTORNEY - And after you were facing and seeing each other there was no fear or distress in the little victim of rape's eyes and face?
MM  no 
ATTORNEY;  This just sodomized victim of a rape did not run to you away from his attacker? He was not crying out in pain and he did not look distressed or fearful when you saw his face? 
MM no 
ATTORNEY;  You said nothing to the boy like - come with me or do you need my help?
MM no 
ATTORNEY - You offered no assistance or comfort to this poor victim?
MM no 
ATTORNEY;  Instead you fled the locker room in distress?
MM well
ATTORNEY; Your inclination was to flee as quickly as possible?
MM yes 
ATTORNEY: So you ran to the nearest telephone to phone for police?
MM no 
ATTORNEY;  You ran to the nearest phone to call a friend or family to come and help?
MM no  I phoned my dad 
ATTORNEY;  So you left this defenseless boy with the monster who you had just seen sodomizing him? 
MM  I made sure it was over
ATTORNEY; How do you know it was over? 
MM  I  i  i  dddd  stutters 
ATTORNEY How could you be certain it would not resume elsewhere or worse that the old former coach might choose to eliminate the only witness - victim who could corroborate your story?
MM  I  I  I ddd ont   stutters 
ATTORNEY; So you ran home to daddy right?
MM yes 
ATTORNEY - And you spoke with your Dad and Dr. Dranov - an old family friend and Doctor who worked with your Dad? 
MM  yes 
ATTORNEY - So you told them you had witnessed an act of sodomy in that locker room?
MM well not exactly 
ATTORNEY; You told them enough so they understood the sexual assault though? 
MM  Well I guess
ATTORNEY And then the 3 of you phoned the police so they could locate the boy and Sandusky so you would know the boy was alive and could get medical care for the rape he had just endured? 
MM no
ATTORNEY - So you could not tell your father and Doctor the horror you just saw in the safe comfortable environment of your family home?  
MM no 
ATTORNEY  But you could tell a 79-year-old football coach about the attack the next morning? You thought an octogenarian would know what you were suggesting about child rape? It didn't take a rocket scientist I think you said to your father, but it would take Sigmund Freakin Freud to figure out how a PSU quarterback turned coach could run out on a helpless child being raped by a twisted pervert like Jerry Sandusky. 
MM well not exactly  
ATTORNEY - And over a week later you were able to tell Tim Curley and Gary Schultz about the intercourse and Sandusky - right? That 10 min meeting was all it took to impress upon them the awful sexual nature of the crime you observed and your cowardly reaction when a boy needed your help? 
MM - well I guess i am a cowardly PSU reputation killing scumbag.

Elephant-merde - pardon my French - unless JS is so poorly endowed his member is the size of a pencil, the pain of forced anal rape would be almost unbearable for a boy that size. Not to mention the simple physics of a man that large behind a boy that small. Sandusky would almost have to be on his knees for the basic geometry of rape to work. 

And I am sorry readers but in my opinion, Mike McQueary is almost as bad as the pedophile in this case. It wasn't Joe, Graham, Tim or Gary who allowed a child rapist to continue molesting kids in PA - it was Mike McQueary. 

Tim and Gary cannot be responsible for a failure to read the mind of a young man who was a quarterback and then coach. This isn't some weak minded marginal guy with emotional and mental problems. This is a successful young athlete who led a PSU football team and became an assistant coach. If he could not come out and say in no uncertain terms that he had witnessed a crime - sodomy  on a 10-year-old boy - how would they come to that conclusion from what they knew? They knew Sandusky as an "Angel in Adoption" from "Mr. Family Values" himself US Senator Rick Santorum. Sandusky was a friend to disadvantaged kids - a veritable Saint in State College. 

If Mike McQueary's account did not inspire his Doctor or Dad - both mandated reporters for a child in their care - to call the police, why would it inspire Curley and Schultz?  It didn't even inspire Dad and the Doctor to go in search of Sandusky and the victim that night when a rape kit could have been made and a report filed. 

Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were not "mandated reporters" working with children. Jerry Sandusky was not a PSU employee. The only thing that tied Mike's muddled and vague account of "something sounding to them like horseplay or inadvertent touching" between the founder of The Second Mile Charity and one of his charges (perhaps an adopted son?) a Second Mile boy - and Penn State was the shower's location. They likely considered this former star Quarterback now coach for PSU, to be a strong minded stellar citizen who could surely say exactly what he saw. Since he could not describe a sexual assault in clear direct words, they thought he was describing horseplay with inadvertent touching. 

Like me, they likely could not fathom a PSU Quarterback running away from a boy in distress IF the boy had just suffered some kind of sexual assault. Surely this leader of size and athletic ability would have insisted he was witness to a despicable sex crime and would have stopped it. 
What am I missing here? 

These charges against the PSU three reek of political machinations by Corbett. Right behind Corbett, John Surma, and the BOT, Mike McQueary is the single major reason for the defamation of PSU. And now he wants 5 million bucks for his cowardly failure to act?   

It took me a long time to write this the way it needed to be written. I tried for years to come up with some acceptable excuse for Mike McQueary. 

Had Mike been a victim at one time? Stories surfaced indicating that was the case. Was he in shock from some flashback memory of abuse? But surely over the course of the decade from Feb. 2001 to Nov. 2011, he would have overcome any personal discomfort.  or 
Was he involved in something criminal that might come out if he got involved before 2011? Stories of betting on games and thousands in debt also surfaced. 

In the end. his actions make no sense. How could a football coach so young and strong be intimidated by a naked old former coach and pederast? How could he play golf with this man? How could he allow the inaction on the part of PSU if he had once been a victim? His father or Dr. Dranov would have gladly gone to the Second Mile with him. 


Dr. Dranov worked with Mike's father and when Mike arrived at the family home after "leaving, distraught," his father phoned Dranov to come over to hear about it. Dranov testified under oath that he asked Mike "what did you see"? 

There in the familiar comfort of his family home, Mike could only say what he had heard. "slapping sounds, a young boy peering out of the shower area, an arm pulling him back." Dr. Dranov asked if the boy was fearful or if he appeared to be distressed. Mike said no, and told the Doctor that Sandusky then came out of the shower. 
Enlarge Ask 3 Times

Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times what he had seen between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary failed to say he saw anything. 

What are we to make of this testimony compared to what Attorney General Kelly said? This certainly does not indicate that Mike told his father and Dr. Dranov that he witnessed a heinous rape in the shower that night. 

What happened here? Did Mike McQueary feel guilty for not impressing on Tim and Gary the heinous nature of what he believed, visualized, or imagined but did not actually see? Did he embellish his report to PA investigators to make up for his assumed error back in 2001?

Since we know from Dr. Dranov what was said right after the event does not jive with his later accounts - it seems he has enhanced his memory of events as time has passed. This bit of testimony is interesting in that aspect:

 McQueary heard the showers and heard what he deemed were sexual slapping sounds so he had these "visualizations" come into his head.  Is that what this is all about? Did he let his imagination get the better of him that night? We cannot make the PSU three victims of Mike's imagination, can we? 

We know the jury in the Sandusky trial returned very few NOT GUILTY verdicts, but one of the few was the count dealing with alleged anal rape in the shower that night. According to the prosecution, McQueary's eyewitness account of what he saw between Sandusky and a boy in a shower in 2001 was the basis for charges against Sandusky in the case known as alleged Victim 2. Counts 7 thru 11 were levied due to McQueary's testimony.
  • Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse Verdict: Not guilty. 
  • Count 8: Indecent assault Verdict: Guilty. 
  • Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors Verdict: Guilty. 
  • Count 10: Corruption of minors Verdict: Guilty. 
  • Count 11: Endangering welfare of children Verdict: Guilty. 

From these verdicts, we know the jury did not find any Presentment charged anal rape or "deviate sexual
intercourse" evidence to be credible. We can surmise that given the nature of all the other 52 charges, the jury was inclined to see every Sandusky contact with a boy in a shower as indecent, unlawful corruption and endangerment. All that requires is the knowledge that Sandusky and the boy were in that shower alone together. 

Knowing these things to be true is a maddening circumstance for those of us who support Penn State. We know the entire defamation of PSU and Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz depended on a belief in AG Kelly's Presentment of anal rape, and the Board of Trustees' ambush by Gov. Corbett and John Surma in the emergency meeting that ended Joe's career and forced President Spanier to resign. 

My opinion is that Mike McQueary is the one person most responsible for the defamation of PSU, the destruction of Joe Paterno's Legacy, the years lost to Tim, Gary, and Graham Spanier, and the millions of dollars that cost Penn State. McQueary's involvement and failure led to Sandusky's continued abuse of children and perhaps most importantly, made this about PSU instead of The Second Mile and PA State Agencies under Tom Corbett that failed in their duty to protect the children of Pennsylvania. 

Mike McQueary could have  
1) stopped Sandusky that night
2) made it perfectly clear to his father & Dr. Dranov he had witnessed a heinous anal rape so they could have gone directly to police 
3) Told Paterno in no uncertain terms demanding he get police and the AD & VP right then 
4) Told AD Curley & VP Schultz in no uncertain terms and had them get police right then
5) over 10 long years, Feb 2001 -Nov 2011 grown the stones to do the right thing. 

The damage to PSU and Joe could have been avoided. I do not believe for one instant if Joe or Tim or Gary or Graham had been told a true, graphic, undeniable story of rape or even sexual assault or molestation, they would have hesitated for an instant to involve the police. They simply were not told what McQueary now says he saw and said. 

The administrators had to weigh their knowledge of Rick Santorum's "Angel in Adoption" - revered founder of The Second Mile charity with 100's of kids in his care and many adopted children, against an uncertain and unclear account of an accomplished PSU QB and Coach. They had every reason to believe this PSU QB would be capable of telling them about a rape or molestation. When his account seemed to be about "horseplay" and at the worst some "inadvertent touching" of a child who may have been an adopted son or one of many TSM children JS was known to care for, they chose to involve the licensed child psychologist Director of The Second Mile responsible for both the children and THEIR EMPLOYEE JERRY SANDUSKY. 

I believe that is what I or most of us would have done. This is days later and we have no idea who the child might have been. If this big strong PSU QB did not choose to intervene on the spot then what exactly was he saying? His father and his Doctor did not think the situation dire enough to call the police that night when something could actually have been done. Why wouldn't we notify the guy who should know what to do - his employer - the child psychologist responsible for him and the kids? 

This was no sinister cover-up to protect a football program. This was a rational decision by 2 PSU administrators who could not make much out of a muddled uncertain account by a man they believed to be far more accomplished as a leader of men than average. PSU QB Mike McQueary failed to be what these administrators believed he was, and his failure - not theirs, is the root of this entire debacle.  


So what to expect from this trial? I have no idea. 

I do know that, with former counsel Cynthia Baldwin, PSU would most likely lose this case. Her ineptitude and incompetence are contributing causes of the PSU predicament. When Corbett and Surma called that 'emergency' meeting, she was the person who should have said NO to their plan to fire Joe and force Graham to the sidelines.  

So I suppose the result of this current McQueary trial will depend on the competence of the current PSU counsel. I  know nothing about either - who that is or what the strategy will be in this trial. But given the history of PSU's capitulation in the face of these insane events, I cannot say with any confidence there is hope of a favorable outcome for the University. I believe any favorable outcome would entail making the 2011 thru 2015 Board of Trustees out to be the fools that they were - and it's difficult to know who is representing what interests in this mess. 

It appears that the scope of this complaint may be limited to the termination of McQueary's employment. Penn State changed football coaches and a typical practice in college football is the complete change of coaching staffs. There is even talk of a settlement. 


The result of this trial might have some effect on the PSU three case, but until we hear the testimony and get the results, it will be difficult to determine. 


Attorneys for Penn State and its former assistant football coach Mike McQueary will reconvene Tuesday afternoon for the final phase of jury selection in McQueary's whistleblower suit against the university.
Individual interviews with 45 prospective jurors over the last two days have yielded a final pool of 28, from which each side will have the ability to strike six candidates.
That would leave 12 jurors and three alternates for the case-in-chief, which is tentatively scheduled to begin next Monday.
It is possible, of course, that the university and McQueary could reach a settlement before then, meaning the case - which would give a fresh look at Penn State's internal response to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal - would never go to trial.
McQueary, 42, seeks damages of at least $4 million, arguing Penn State's inaction in 2001 and former President Graham Spanier's initial support of the former administrators who McQueary reported to after their arrest on failure to report charges damaged his reputation at a time when national attention to the Sandusky case was at its peak.
The university, after initially placing McQueary on paid leave, did not renew his contract after June 2012.
But officials have said that was simply the result of a post-Paterno era changing of the guard in the Penn State football program, and point to the payment of an 18-month severance to McQueary as an example of its fairness to him.

From a much earlier post on various testimonies on the record 

McQUEARY UNDER OATH - Grand Jury, Perjury Hearing and the Trial
We know that the Grand Jury Presentment insisted MM's testimony was that he observed JS subjecting the boy to anal intercourse and informed PSU officials Paterno, Curley and Schultz. Presentment pages 6 and 7
His perjury hearing testimony: 2 or 3 slapping sounds "rhythmic and sexual" and two 2 second glances of JS backside with no hands or genitals in view as JS stood behind a boy whose head came up to his pectoral muscles with his feet on the floor. Perjury Hearing Transcript
And finally the testimony at trial was more confident as he added that he saw subtle movement from JS midsection as he claimed certainty that he was a witness to rape. What movement can be observed or certainty established in 1 or 2 seconds? McQueary Testimony summary
The jury in deliberation asked to hear the McQueary and Dranov testimony read again. It was the only testimony they reviewed. Their verdict was "not guilty" on the count of deviate sexual intercourse so they did not believe MM and his certainty about witness of a rape. Jury hears testimony again 
The defense did not use the Perjury Hearing testimony or the various versions of McQueary's statements to impeach his trial testimony about an unidentified "victim" 2. Don't expect attorneys for Schultz and Curley to be so negligent and soft on Mike. The prosecution used mannequins to illustrate the positions of the boy and JS according to the testimony.



  1. It isn't really a "repetition" because the issues are different. The main issue is if Penn State fired McQueary because he was a whistleblower, or perhaps if he even was a whistleblower.

    McQueary's second claim was that Spanier defamed him in his statement of support for Curley and Schultz.

    His third claim is that Curley and Schultz broke their promise to him to investigate the 2001 shower incident.

    The defense might not even challenge McQueary's testimony about the shower incident but focus on other issues. There are certainly different ways to defend this lawsuit.

    I wish the defense would cross-examine everyone involved in 2001, including Dr. Dranov, Mike's father, Jack Raykovitz, Tom Harmon, victim 2 and lawyer Courtney. I doubt victim 2 will testify because he appears to be hiding. Sandusky's lawyer could not locate him.

    I wish the defense would question McQueary about his gambling addiction and claim that he was sexually abused as a child too. I think the gambling addiction makes McQueary unemployable as a football coach. Gambling addiction is not a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act so gambling addicts are not a protected class.

    1. According to a US Supreme Court ruling, a "whistleblower" has the burden to prove that the PRIMARY reason for termination was the whistleblowing activity. A contract not being renewed is common in any business. Assistant coaches serve at the pleasure of the head coach and do not have any expectation of employment after the head coach leaves.

    2. Tim - when you say PSU fired Mike I am a bit confused. It was my impression that Mike was put on paid leave after Joe was fired for his own protection and because he would be a distracting influence on the sideline. Then when Bill O'Brien was hired HE was given a contract that gave him complete control over his own staff. That is pretty standard for all NCAA football teams and coaches. At that point O'Brien did not decide to hire MM.

    3. McQueary on Paid Leave

    4. Tim - as you can determine from my article - The idea that Dr. Spanier defamed MM by stating his support for Curley and Schultz, is ludicrous to me. My information from the principals is that MM's account of what he heard - 3 rhythmic slapping sounds - and what he saw - a boy who was not fearful or in distress. Made Curley and Schultz wonder what he was doing in the meeting. The "visualizations" testimony prominent on the page above is the answer to me. Since no rhythm can be ascertained from 3 slapping sounds it is strange but evidently MM thought he was hearing 2 adults in that shower having sex. When the boy appeared and then JS he simply kept the adult sex of his imagination and transferred it to JS sex with the child. That is why he could not say more to Dranov or anyone else for 10 years

    5. I just meant that McQueary's claim is that Penn State fired him. Penn State says his contract was just not renewed, as was the case for all but 2 of Paterno's assistant coaches.

    6. The word "rhythmic" and "ten year old boy" are Fina constructs. Typical prosecutor chicanery to prejudice the case. Just like many of the victim's stories were amplified by Fina (suborned perjury) or scripted by Shubin(FRAUD)in order to get a big payout. There is no such thing as exaggeration in this case..either you are telling the truth or you are lying...and there was a lot of lying. BTW... if you ever messed around in a shower with your significant don't make slapping sounds unless you get spanked for poor performance.

  2. I have often wondered why MM associated three slapping sounds with sex. Associating a sound with an activity is a conditioned response. I would have thought of towels slapping and flying water polo balls (I can still feel the sting!). And I doubt that even JS would take a boy younger than about 14 into a weight room. JS was a PhysEd major and knew that kids younger than that do not belong in a weight room.

    Frank Fina used the fraudulent presentation and the janitor hoax to paint a picture of a young child pinned against a wall. A brilliant way to prejudice a case. Fina was Corbett's hatchet man in the Bonusgate and ComputerGate scandals. Kelly was selected by Corbett as his replacement over many more qualified candidates. Fina's MO was intimidation, and he had no qualms in braking ethical standards to get what he wanted. He knew his buddies had his back.

    Curious that MM's first meeting with investigators was in his attorney's office. It seems that he thought police wanted to talk to him about sending pictures of his genitalia to a PSU coed.

    1. Yes MM seemed to have sex on the brain that night with his "visualizations" and never did see how 3 slapping sounds could be "rhythmic". Just saw Finas porn for the first time today. What a creep and with all that porn flying around between parties u have to wonder what plans they cooked up to prosecute Corbett's plan.

    2. I always thought the whole story of assuming sex based on 2 or 3 slapping sounds heard through the door made no sense. It was even more unbelievable that McQueary would believe two adults were having sex but would still walk in on them.

      Perhaps that locker room was known as a rendezvous point for sex. Maybe that was McQueary's real reason for going there after hours. Maybe he thought he could join the man and woman he believed were in there.

      Another explanation is that Mike was the one sexually abused in the shower as a child and the slapping sounds triggered a flashback to his own abuse. That would explain why he was so very upset. I hope PSU lawyers question Mike, his relatives and Dr. Dranov about that.

    3. In my opinion - the "slapping sounds" and escalating that to sex and rape is from Frank Fina.

      After seeing the hard core pornography he had as a trophy stash on his work computer which included women being subject to anal sex and rape with objects. (this is a public official whose office tasked with protecting women against assault mind you!) I firmly believe Fina heard "slapping sounds", chuckled to himself and thought THIS is how I'm gonna nail Spanier.

      Especially since we know the OAG/PSP had the "Penn State emails"& Schultz' not-so-secret "secret files" well before the November 2011 shitstorm and before Louis Freeh was even hired.

      It also begs the question, if Mike was so upset - why hadn't he, his dad, or Dr. Dranov ever contacted Second Mile with their concerns?

      And if Fina and the OAG truly wanted to clean house of all these Child Rape Enablers in town - why didn't they charge Drs. Dranov & Raykovitz?

      Rhetorical questions. We know the answers.

  3. As a 6'-4" man with a 5'-1" wife I can assure you that engaging in intercourse in the position as described by Mike McQueary is next to impossible and would require the man to be a contortionist. I would deem it impossible with a 4'-0" child.

  4. Barry,
    Very thorough and well-said. In my mind you have completely proven McQueary to be an unreliable witness. He has just too much baggage to be taken at his word. And with his ever-changing testimony, he's already proven that fact. So even before he takes his best shot at the 5 million dollar jackpot prize he's playing for, he's shown us just how wishy-washy he really is.

    Also, your point about the pain involved in an alleged anal rape of a 10 year-old boy by a full-grown man would have made the alleged rape incident quite an obvious act of violence. The scene, had it actually occurred, would have been unmistakable brutality that needed immediate intervention. But Tom Corbett, the most destructive Governor in Pennsylvania's history, says "remember that little boy in the shower". Just how little was that boy Tom?

    1. Thank you Truthseeker - Corbett and his attack dogs with FINA the PORN KING are worthless garbage. Here's hoping they soon receive their just desserts. I can't see how MM's attorney thinks this thing is a winner.

  5. I hope Penn State lawyers make the point that Mike McQueary was a whistleblower in 2001 and suffered no retaliation from Penn State. In fact, a few years later he was hired as a highly-paid assistant coach by Penn State.

    I don't think McQueary should be termed a whistleblower in 2010 on because the police had to track him down. He had no choice but to testify or risk obstruction charges.

  6. Outstanding, Barry. The proof is in not just the photos, but in the logic.

  7. I have my own opinion of MM and it has no roots in the Sandusky issue. My wife has known him since middle school and, when you first started hearing his name associated with PSU (I believe it was the year he threw the long bomb to cover the spread), I recall her informing me in no uncertain terms that he was nothing but a rat fink that would say or do anything to get what he wanted... isn't funny how this case has proved that out?

    1. Rob, Mike has done irreparable damage to PSU, the legacy of JoePa, and to the lives of Dr. Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz. $200 million in costs, 5 years of the PSU 3's lives and counting, and I believe an earlier than necessary death of an iconic coach who had to have been in agony those final months. You and I and everyone here can recall the mobs of press outside the Paterno house in State College. ALL MIKE NEEDED TO DO WAS DRIVE OVER TO THAT HOUSE AND STAND UP IN FRONT OF THOSE REPORTERS AND SAY "I NEVER SAW A RAPE - I NEVER SAID I SAW A RAPE - AND I CERTAINLY NEVER TOLD JOE I SAW A RAPE" - that simple telling of the TRUTH at that point in time would have made all the difference. But Mike did not have the stones, the will, the love of Coach and Alma Mater, the love for his community and State, the moral fiber, the courage, or the COMMON DECENCY - TO TELL THE PRESS AND HIS FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS that he did not say what AG Linda Kelly wrote in that presentment. He has not said that to this day and IMHO opinion he will dwell in this prison of his own making until he does that.

    2. Perhaps the worst part of his actions is that they likely knew he had issues and "took him in" anyway... what else was he going to do with his life? How long until any other employer would have seen his issues and kicked him to the curb had Paterno not taken him in and here is his big "thank you"???

    3. Barry - Not defending Mike McQueary but he was likely under orders from the AG not to speak about the case. There may have even been a way to enforce his silence in the form of an immunity deal for himself, his father and Dranov. If they could charge Curley and Schultz with failure to report, then they certainly could have charged Dranov and Mike's father.

      Mike did eventually testify that he never used any graphic sexual terms in 2001, contrary to what the presentment said, but the damage was already done.

    4. Tim,
      Perhaps Fina & Kelly did "order" Mike to remain silent under some threat of reprisal. Perhaps it involved the failure to report idea - but Dranov & Mike's Dad were not involved in care for that child so that threat was empty. Perhaps it involved a knowledge of Mike's gambling or his sexting. But there comes a time for many of us when we are required to stand up and do the right thing regardless of consequences. If we fail at that we are diminished. Mike failed to support the school, coach, team, and community where he was elevated to a position of respect as the QB for PSU. That is a crime against himself - everything he was - all he was raised to be. The only thing he can do now is make amends - ask for forgiveness and TELL THE TRUTH

    5. Barry - Prosecutors lie all the time so who knows what they told McQueary. Curley and Schultz "were not involved in care for that child" but they were charged.

      I hope Penn State lawyers ask McQueary if he had any kind of immunity deal for himself or his father and Dranov.

      It is possible that McQueary genuinely believes his testimony given how easy it is to implant false memories.

      We know the state troopers who interviewed McQueary used dirty tactics like turning off the tape recorder and then telling the witness what they wanted him to say. They also colluded with a victim's lawyer to get the victim to say he was abused.

      The police may have essentially gotten a false confession from McQueary about the events of 2001. False confessions are very common and a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

  8. Excellent, Barry. I do have a question, as well as a comment. If Sandusky was barely moving, and certainly not moving fast, as MM testified, how were there any slapping sounds at all? One of the things that has really bothered me about MM's testimony is his use of the phrase "I would have said..." with regard to his reports to Curley & Schultz. That indicates to me that he didn't know or remember much at all, or that he didn't report those things at all; however, if he had reported them, "He would have said..." There was only one instance where MM added, "I did say that." Don't you find that odd?

    1. I would characterize it as BEYOND ODD Shari. It is a tell tale sign of obfuscation and prevarication. MM appears to have been, from remarks on here and in Facebook threads, a serial prevaricator. Those who say they knew him knew he has a penchant for self-aggrandizement and embellishment that approached the pathological. The use of "I would have said" is indicative of a tortured soul now so damaged he has retreated into self-delusion.

  9. Cynthia Baldwin's daughter was involved in a fatal DUI accident in Philly (or as we central PA folks called it..filthydelphia). After Baldwin flipped, the matter seemed to disappear. It had Fina's paw marks all over it. Fina suborned perjury in at least 4 instances...and for judge Cleland to allow highly prejudical uncorroborated hearsay testimony (eg...the janitor hoax) is a jurisprudence mortal sin. It would get him removed from the bench in many states and certainly any Federal position. It gives the appearance that he was in on the hoax. (BTW..the janitors were represented by the Teamsters you think that they would let anything bad happen to a member for reporting the sexual assault of a boy by someone Joe Paterno didn't even like???)

  10. The Janitor Hoax was the vehicle used to tie in the football program. Freeh called it the most heinous crime committed on the PSU campus and that the janitors were afraid to report it because of the powerful football culture. So much for powerful public works unions. The union bosses trembled in fear of the football juggernaut! Did you note that two of the three janitors failed to show up at trial? Maybe their parish priest told them that they would burn in hell if they committed perjury again!

  11. Even though PA's judicial system is as corrupt as they come, let's hope this goes to the jury & they are smart enough to look at the tangled evidence and call b.s.

  12. Corruption, thy name is PA. Ken Frasier, chairman of the Special Investigative Taskforce, was negotiating Merck's Vioxx liability with Kelly. Conflict of interest??? Kelly(Corbett) had him on puppet strings. There were many entities that wanted him, and those responsible for the fraudulent Vioxx data package sent to FDA, prosecuted for negligent homicide (over 100 K premature deaths). To make sure Freeh, et al, toed the line, Corbett sent his lieutenant Ronald (the rodent) Tomalis as his personal representative on the SIT. Ronny was rewarded with do nothing job with a 6 figure salary. This only received a brief play in the press.

  13. The BOT did not panic. They knew exactly what they were doing and what its effect would be. Most knew in February,2011 that JS was being investigated. Second Mile Executive Board President and former B of A Vice President Poole (who once had an underling names Louis Freeh who was the keynote speaker at JS's retirement party)held political fund raisers for Corbett with Second Mile children present. Guess why Corbett forbade the investigation of Second Mile? Better to divert blame from Corbett's miserable handling of the case, and from people on the SM executive Board and PSU BOT with extensive financial entanglements, to people that Corbett explicitly stated that he wanted to get rid of. SM brought about 3 megabucks annually into Centre County, and I'm sure it used the money to purchase goods and services from companies associated with members of both boards. A conspiracy? maybe, but most probably people pursuing their own financial interests and covering each other's back...doin' what comes naturally for these miscreants. And there were Paterno haters....he was obviously incapable of executing the duties of a D 1 coach after about 2005, and him not stepping down due to arrogance and ego fermented in the craw of many people.

  14. Barry,

    Thanks for the great article and all your research and work on this case. Ray, you and several others have done a great job of providing us information. What I find so frustrating is that no one in the “Main Stream Media” has shown an interest in getting at the truth in the Second Mile scandal.

    When the case first broke I sent a letter to the Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal (formerly a reputable paper). I requested that he assign Dorothy Rabinowitz to the case. Several years ago she pursued two major child molestation cases and wrote extensively about them in the Journal. Her work resulted in both being identified as false proscecutions and I believe all those convicted had their convictions overturned. Several prosecutors also lost their law licenses over their actions on the cases. Unfortunately Dorothy had cut back her work and was near retirement.

    I think if you and Ray, plus several others were able to get the attention of a reputable media outlet to pursue the Second Mile case, we’d finally get the truth out to the public. Perhaps things would even be turned around. Instead, it’s a relatively small group of us who actually read what you have found and reported. I’m beginning to doubt that the majority of the public will ever learn the full truth about this case.