Sunday, March 26

McQueary Truthbomb: Another Version of 2001 Story Uncovered

Mike McQueary Bombshell: Original 2010 police statement reveals another version of his story and the OAG's "Rudy" ruse.

Eileen Morgan


In my July 2015 article, I put forth strong evidence of the theory that former PSU attorney Cynthia Baldwin had retrieved Gary Schultz’s ‘secret’ Sandusky file (that he actually informed her about) and submitted a copy of the file to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) in early January 2011 behind her client’s back, breaching attorney-client privilege. 

At that time Baldwin was representing Penn State’s Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, and Joe Paterno (who soon hired outside counsel) who were being questioned in the Jerry Sandusky investigation about a 2001 incident that was reported to them by Mike McQueary.

The article, if true, lays out a strong case of malpractice by Baldwin and exposes many lies of the state actors relating to the 2001 incident where McQueary walked in on Sandusky and a boy showering at night in the Lasch Building. 

Gary Schultz testified that he told Baldwin that he may have a file in his old office at Penn State and that it would help him to jog his memory if he could look at it. (We later learn the file was indeed right where he told her it was.) She told him that would not be necessary and that he should not retrieve the file or refresh his memory. 

Looking at the evidence produced in my article, it certainly appears that Baldwin retrieved the file, made a copy and gave that copy to the OAG.  At this point it seems the PSU men were no longer being looked at to help prosecute Sandusky but rather be prosecuted themselves.

If Baldwin did give Schultz’s file to the OAG then they had the approximate date of the 2001 incident: February 12, 2001.  And they definitely knew the year.

The file included communications, notes, and emails regarding the 2001 incident that was reported by McQueary to Joe Paterno. Paterno then reported it to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and the latter two in turn reported it to Graham Spanier. Looking at the notes, out of context, the OAG felt the PSU men may have failed to report or even covered up the 2001 incident.  The OAG was now not only investigating Sandusky but Schultz, Curley, Paterno, and Spanier as well.

The current date at the time of this apparent file transfer from Baldwin to the OAG was early January 2011.  The real date posed a problem because the OAG could not make it fit under the existing statute of limitations in 2001.  However, a 2002 date could be made to fit under a 2006 amendment to the statute that was enacted in 2007.

At this point, McQueary was not sure if the incident happened in 2001 or 2002. This was golden for the OAG.  Even though the notes clearly showed the exact date of 2-12-01, the OAG decided to go with the 2002 date.  

Why?  Because that gave them an ‘extra year’ to file a Failure to Report charge against the PSU men.  If the incident happened in 2002, then it was within the limit.  Curley and Schultz were charged in November 2011.

As I said in the article, “charging the PSU officials the same day as charging Sandusky helped give birth to the false narrative that Penn State was to blame for Sandusky’s crimes.

In essence, the ONLY way for the OAG to charge Curley and Schultz with perjury would have been with the benefit of Schultz’s notes and the ONLY way to charge them with Failure to Report in 2011 was to PRETEND they did not have Schultz’s notes and then choose the 2002 date (over the correct 2001 date) provided by Mike McQueary.”


It is now December 2011, a year has passed since McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz were questioned before the Grand Jury.  Sandusky, Curley and Schultz have now been charged.

At this point the OAG is still using 2002 as the year for the shower incident to charge Curley and Schultz. The OAG knows it cannot admit the file was turned over by PSU attorney Baldwin but must somehow ‘discover’ the correct date before the Sandusky trial so this snafu is not used by the defense to throw out the 2001 incident. After all, Mike McQueary is their star witness and the 2001 incident is their ace in the hole. (Schultz himself would turn over the file in April 2012 but at this point they don’t know that.  The OAG would also give it to Freeh who would later claim he discovered the ‘secret file’ but this would be after the Sandusky trial.)

The OAG must find a way to ‘discover’ the true date.  During this year (from Nov 2010-Dec 2011) they devise a plan. They find a program or movie on TV the night of 2-9-01 and have McQueary ‘remember he was watching it’ and bingo!  They now can go through TV guides to ‘discover’ the actual date.  And they didn’t just find any movie, they found a football movie. Who would ever question that?

So, on December 16, 2011 McQueary takes the stand at the first Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing.  We now hear, for the first time, the details of that late winter/early spring ‘2002’ evening.  McQueary testifies that he in fact was home early that Friday evening, already in bed, watching a football movie. (At Sandusky trial he names the movie - Rudy.)  About half way through the movie (around 9pm) he got ‘motivated’ and decided to go to Lasch building to watch/pick up some recruiting tapes.  He also decided to drop his new sneakers off at his locker before going to his office to watch/pick up the tapes.

Of course we know that upon entering the locker room, he hears the showers on, goes to his locker and sees Sandusky and a boy in close proximity to one another in the shower. 

The Rudy movie is now part of his official story of the events of that night when he walked in the Lasch locker room. 

Interestingly, on cross examination on 12-16-11, when asked if it was 2001 or 2002, McQueary said he was not positive but said ‘If you give me 30 minutes I can think of some event in my life to relate whether it was 2001 or 2002.  But, not off the top of my head.’ 

It has been a year since the police first sought him out and interviewed him.  Wouldn’t he at some point during that year have taken 30 minutes to think about life events so he would know without a doubt the exact year the incident took place?


Anthony Sassano, special investigator for OAG, testified at Sandusky’s trial that, in order to confirm the exact date of shower incident, he went through 2001 and 2002 TV guides and found Rudy on TV at 8:05pm on February 9, 2001.  The OAG has now ‘discovered’ the true date of the shower incident without ever having to reveal Baldwin’s chicanery.

Remember these ‘facts.’

McQueary has now testified under oath FOUR times that on the night of the shower incident he was: 

1)    At home in bed by 8pm watching Rudy;
2)    Was motivated halfway through the movie to go into his office and watch recruiting tapes. 
3)    Left his home and drove to Lasch and on way to his office he first stopped by his locker to drop off sneakers and; 
4)    Saw Sandusky in shower with a boy.

Of course, the idea that Baldwin gave the OAG Schultz’s file and the OAG fabricated the Rudy movie story for McQueary is all just theory……up until now.


I recently received a bombshell from an anonymous source.  I was sent the original November 2010 police report and handwritten statement of Mike McQueary.
These two pieces of evidence are McQueary’s first statements, unadulterated and untainted by any outside force.

In the 2010 police report, Trooper Scott Rossman records the following:

Compare these sworn statements of 12-16-11, 6-12-12, 7-29-13, and 10-21-16. (in black) to the original police report (in red.)

1) On that Friday evening, I was working late on the PSU campus.
1) On that Friday evening I was home early in bed watching Rudy @8pm.

2) Before going home @ 10pm, I wanted to take my sneakers to my locker in the football building (Lasch.)
2) I got motivated @ 9pm and decided to go to the Lasch building and look at recruiting tapes.

3) Upon entering the locker room
3) I parked the car and upon going into building I went DIRECTLY to locker room to put sneakers away that I had just bought.

4) I saw Sandusky and a boy in the shower.
4) I saw Sandusky and a boy in the shower.


It is understandable not to recount specific details from 10 years prior.  It is also understandable that some details may change slightly the more you think back and remember.  But, his police statement is in DIRECT contradiction to his later testimony under oath.

He tells police he was on campus late that night and before going home he swung by the Lasch building to put sneakers away.  A year later he testifies that he was at home in bed watching a movie and decided to go into work to the Lasch building on campus.  These two statements could not be more antithetical.

But why?

 Why would McQueary change his story that he was ‘on campus late and went to Lasch building before going home,’ to ‘being at home in bed early watching a movie and then going to Lasch building on campus later that night?’

There is absolutely no reason why McQueary would lie to police about being at home watching a movie before going to the Lasch building. 

In addition, on October 21, 2016, at his whistle-blower trial, McQueary, on cross examination testified: In my verbal statement to investigators (11-22-10) ‘I told them everything and was as specific as I could. I tried to tell them everything that I could about the incident.’

There you have it.  

McQueary testifies that in his original, unadulterated police report, he ‘told them everything’ and ‘was as specific’ as possible.  This proves that only afterwards, within that next year, his story changed.  And that change was at the urging of the OAG. 

As postulated before, the OAG knew the incident happened in 2001 not 2002, but they needed 2002 to stick until they charged the PSU officials.  This incredible change of events of McQueary on that night in 2001 is one of the keys to proving OAG misconduct.  
The Rudy Ruse and Baldwin Gives Schultz’s File to OAG theory is now becoming less theory and more reality.

This is the very first statement from McQueary in Nov 2010:

McQueary wasn’t sure of the date, but the OAG later went with 2002 in order to charge Curley and Schultz (using an extremely tortured interpretation of the statute of limitations).  

As previously theorized, from McQueary’s first statement on 11-22-10 to his testimony on 12-16-11, the OAG had to figure out a way to ‘discover’ the 2001 date without outing that Baldwin had given them Schultz's notes (that showed the incident occurred in 2001).

The 2010 Police Report proves McQueary signifcantly changed the version of events of that night.  It now appears quite certain the OAG fabricated the Rudy Ruse McQueary went along with it.  They then had the basis for ‘discovering’ the February 9, 2001 date with TV guides.

This complete change of events on the night of February 9, 2001 blows the case wide open in favor of the Penn State men- Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier- who were thrown under the bus by Penn State’s own Board and the OAG.   

It proves that the OAG tampered with McQueary’s original story of being on campus late before going home. 

It proves that McQueary is not credible. 

And it proves that nothing McQueary testified to can be believed to be 100% truth, especially relating to what he told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz regarding the 2001 shower incident.

The events that McQueary changed about that night were not subtle nuances he suddenly remembered. It was a complete 180 from being on campus late and going to Lasch before going home to being home in bed early watching a movie and then going to Lasch.  His police statement that was ‘as specific as possible’ and included ‘everything’ did not mention being home, being in bed, watching a movie, being motivated to get out of bed, or going to Lasch to watch recruiting tapes. 

NONE of those details were in his ‘specific as possible’ report.

The police report provides additional evidence that the Rudy story was just a ploy in order for the OAG to ‘discover’ the real date of the 2001 shower incident before the Sandusky trial.  This allowed them to protect Baldwin who committed a breach of ethics when she handed her client Schultz’s file over to the OAG without also sharing it with him.

In addition, it is possible the defense for Sandusky and/or the defense for the PSU3, had they known the content of the original police report, may have grilled McQueary about this change in his story. His credibility, or lack thereof, would have been hammered home. 

These differing accounts also opened the door to question what the true story really was.   For instance, he may have been downtown drinking that afternoon and used the stories as alibis. His eyewitness report of seeing Sandusky and a boy in the shower in two, 1-2 second glances would have been that more unreliable had he been tipsy or intoxicated. Changing the story to being home in bed helps avoid such questions, not only for McQueary but for his father and Dr. Dranov as well. I would have liked to hear their answer to whether they had any indication that Mike had been drinking that night.


In addition to McQueary’s blatant change to his original story from being on campus late to being at home early in bed watching a movie, the police report and handwritten statement confirm other discrepancies that I have revealed over the years regarding McQueary’s testimony.  

In the Nov 2010 Police Report and Hand-written Report, McQueary only mentions 2 glances into the shower.  One glance on his way in and one glance on his way out of the locker room.  

He never mentions slamming a locker, a third glance, or that Sandusky and the boy were separated when he left (testimony he adds later at the hearings and trials.)  

And again, these two reports were as ‘specific as possible’ and included ‘everything.’ 

In addition, McQueary makes it clear in both documents that he never spoke to law enforcement. 

 In the police report McQueary doesn’t remember Gary Schultz’s name or his correct title. He says Schultz was VP of Athletics.  Which clearly rules out that McQueary believed Schultz was ‘head of the police department’ and when he spoke to him in 2001 (which McQueary claimed later during 2011-2013 hearings and trial.)

After the grand jury presentment leak,  McQueary admitted in an email to friends he was ‘getting hammered for not doing anything to protect the boy.’ He insisted, ‘I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police.’ 

In McQueary’s email to Jonelle Eshbach and Anthony Sassano (OAG) in response to the grand jury presentment leak, McQueary complained his life was ruined:

He only began to claim that Gary Schultz was ‘police/law enforcement’ in November 2011 because he was getting pummeled by peers, the media and the public for not stopping Sandusky.  

However, when he filed his whistle-blower lawsuit, he contradicted his previous testimony and claimed that ‘Gary Schultz was not the police, and police/law enforcement was not contacted, and that Curley & Schultz mislead him about their intention of contacting police.’

Clearly, his story changes to suit his needs….and the needs of the OAG.


McQueary’s first police report included ‘everything’ and was ‘specific as possible.’  If that is true then here are the untruths (in red) that have followed:

1)    I was on campus late that night about to go home before heading to Lasch.
(I was actually at home in bed early that night watching Rudy and then went to Lasch.)

2)    I looked in the shower twice, once on my way in to my locker and once on my way out of the locker room.  
(I actually looked into the shower 3 times.)

3)    I left because I just wanted to get out of there as fast as I could. I was in a hurried/hastened state. No mention of stopping it or that the two were separated when he left.
(I actually slammed the locker door to stop it.  The two were separated when I left.)

4)    I spoke with Tim Curley and the VP of Athletics (Gary Schultz.)I did not speak to police. I was never interviewed by any law enforcement personnel. (“I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police.” “Gary Schultz was the police and the official in charge of police.” “I thought I was talking to police.  Gary Schultz in my mind was head of police.”)


Yes, Curley and Schultz have recently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. And Spanier was just found guilty of one charge, Endangering the Welfare of a Child (EWOC), a misdemeanor, but will no doubt appeal that conviction and likely win.

But will this truth- McQueary’s FIRST police statement being totally altered- ever be investigated? 

Will McQueary ever be held accountable for changing his statements to police and on the witness stand?  If he is investigated and found to have committed perjury I feel a lot of truths would begin to unravel.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth still matters and the conduct of so many within the OAG are highly suspect. Would an investigation expose:

Mike McQueary for perjury?

Baldwin for breach of ethics, obstruction of justice, and perjury?

Sassano for perjury?

OAG/Fina for obstruction of justice?

Maybe Penn State University will do the right thing once and for all and challenge the $12 Million dollar judgment handed down to them by McQueary’s lawsuit decision.  They can start with the police report and expose the lies.  

Maybe then McQueary would finally reveal the nefarious conduct of the OAG. 

Incidentally, on the witness stand at Spanier’s trial this past week, McQueary told the court that the ‘OAG called to warn him they were about to leak the Grand Jury Presentment.’  

Penn State, there is your opening to start defending the school once and for all and uncover the truth -- and you can do it as you move on with the appeal in the McQueary civil lawsuit.

To print pdf document, visit


  1. Exactly. Eileen, your analysis is clear and thorough, as always. Surely Mike McQueary won't walk away from the disaster he largely created with millions of dollars and his own badge of "Victim". Seems that CSS and the Paterno estate could sue him for damages due to perjury.

    1. Thanks! I don't who will bring this out, I just wish someone would so we could have the full truth.

  2. It also looks like Mike McQuerry "would have said.............improper behavior". Maybe his Dad can chime and confirm his..........location that night. P.S. I recall another version where MM said he was watching the movie on Campus and left early to head to Lasch. The movie would have ended at 9:30 so the 10 p.m. arrival ........does not fit.

  3. Note that in the original version, Mike stated it was 10:00 PM.

    In all the other versions it is 9:00 PM.

    His father said that he got home around 9:00 PM (after calling from the locker room).

  4. My cat (who is really good at smelling rats) had the Readers Digest Hoax figured out immediately. It went nicely with the Janitor Hoax and the fraudulent presentation to paint a vivid picture of a boy being pinned against a wall. A child of 12 could see the janitor story as a hoax. Ziegler and Slaten tossed Sassano's testimony around like a ping pong ball.

    We would not be having this discussion if any of the defendants had a competent attorney who knew how to cross-examine witnesses and paint the OAG for the liars they are. The Paterno's screwed the pooch from day one (political correctness always trumps waiting for all the facts to emerge..why can't Scott Paterno just say "wait a minute..something doesn't sound right"?

    The biggest failure, however, is the pathetic performance of defense attorneys who could have torn this case to shreds five years ago.

    Yes..there was a lot of pejury and suborned perjury and fraud...but who is going to prosecute that?? Everyone (including "victims") had a license to lie, and they used it. Look at Fina's MO when he worked for Corbett...fits perfectly.

  5. So much of McQueary's story does not make sense. He couldn't remember the month or year of a pivotal event yet he testified that when he phoned Paterno the day after the 2001 shower incident Paterno immediately told him "if it's about a job, don't bother, I don't have one for you."

    The reason for Paterno's job comment was that asst. coach, Kenny Jackson, announced the day before the shower incident that he was leaving to coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers. That meant Paterno had a job opening. Jackson was the wide receivers coach, the job McQueary wanted and got in 2004. That was a bigger and far more significant event to link to the shower incident than the Rudy movie.

    Another very significant event right before the 2001 shower incident was National Signing Day on Wed. Feb. 7. So that's
    National Signing Day Feb. 7
    Kenny Jackson resigns Feb. 8
    Shower incident Feb. 9

    The sneakers story doesn't make much sense either. Why make a special trip to drop off a new pair of sneakers when you can simply wear the new sneakers to school and wear the old pair home? Maybe McQueary went to the locker room for some other reason and just made up the new sneaker story as an excuse.

    What also doesn't make sense was McQueary hearing slapping sounds through the door, immediately believing it was a man and woman having sex but then immediately walking in on them. Most people wouldn't deliberately walk in on a couple having sex for no compelling reason. Perhaps that's the real reason McQueary went to the locker room, for a hookup, and he was shocked that he found Sandusky and a boy instead of a menage a trois.

  6. I'm not convinced the Attorney General needed to lie about the year because of the statute of limitations for the failure to report charge. The Attorney General clearly had the judge on her side to accept bogus charges.

    Curley and Schultz filed a motion to dismiss the failure to report shortly after their arrest. The judge simply refused to rule on it. It took 5 years, and another judge, to get a ruling on that motion. The new judge ruled that failure to report was filed beyond the statute of limitations and dismissed it.

    The Attorney General still filed a failure to report charge against Spanier a year after Curley and Schultz when it was known that the shower incident was in 2001. The judge accepted that charge too.

    What the original police reports do show is that Mike McQueary had a very poor memory so his credibility is so poor that his testimony should not be used as the main or sole basis to convict.

    One wonders if Spanier's lawyer had these documents. It certainly was a missed opportunity to question McQueary's credibility.

  7. I had a lot of empathy for McQueary in the beginning. Yes I noticed his '3rd look' excuse and saw it for what it was: An attempt to save face for not acting in defense of the victim. But I always thought he was cornered into his testimony somehow and saw this as his attempt to assuage the huge guilt trip laid on him by the media and the child advocacy rubes.

    Looking at the evidence of his testimony twists and turns as shown here by Eileen it is clear just how much involved he was in helping to create the rush to judgement. Once the whistle-blower suit was awarded to him, I no longer felt the empathy that I had previously experienced. For a man (and I use that term loosely) to do as little as he did and implicate his colleagues in this mess to the extent he has done, there is no excuse for him anymore.

    I still feel the majority of the blame for this mess belongs to the media hacks and child advocacy jackals for literally creating a scandal out of pure supposition. Mike was as much a victim of that swindle as anyone. But now he is completely invested in the ruse and is no longer an innocent. Were he to step forward and reveal the truth, that would be the only thing that could rectify what he has done.

  8. @Phillip Carey - I doubt McQueary remembered the whole truth in 2010, that's why the police could fill in the blanks for him. He likely thinks he is telling the truth because it is a false memory or false confession.

    False confessions are an important cause of wrongful convictions. Many states allow defendants could call experts at trial to inform a jury about false confessions. PA is one of the backward states in that because in 2014 the PA Supreme Court overruled the county and Superior Court and disallowed expert testimony on false confessions and police interrogation tactics.

  9. It would really be nice if McQueary's entire Nov 2010 Police Report and Hand-written Report could also be posted. Excerpts are good but can be misleading without the full documents.

    One of the huge problems in the Sandusky scandal is that so few bother to read the official documents, particularly reporters. Reporters often seem to rely on press releases by prosecutors or Freeh rather than a critical reading of the actual documents.

  10. Ray, one of the jurors today explained their reasoning for finding Spanier guilty on the child endangerment count. She said that his email where he said that they would be "vulnerable" for not reporting if the message was not heard showed that he, Curley and Schultz knew the risk they were taking for not reporting it. It seems hard to argue with her logic.

    Based on this, do you think Spanier has any chance his conviction would be overturned in the appeal?

  11. DMarioP - The juror missed Curley's testimony that they believed in 2001 that Sandusky had Boundary Issues, as diagnosed in 1998 by the PA Dept. of Public Welfare expert, Jerry Lauro.

    Interpreting the emails with Boundary Issues as the problem casts them in an entirely different light. They wanted Sandusky to get professional help for his Boundary Issues so he wouldn't be falsely accused of child abuse as in 1998. They weren't trying to protect Penn State football, they were trying to protect Sandusky from his Boundary Issues.

    That juror also said "there wasn’t evidence that the goal was to put children at risk." If that is true then the conviction for child endangerment was wrong because the PA child endangerment law requires that a person "knowingly endangers the welfare of the child."

    It seems the jury didn't understand the child endangerment law.

    For Spanier to be guilty of child endangerment, he would also have had to be "a person that employs or supervises" Sandusky. Another PA court already ruled that Sandusky retired from Penn State in 1999 so Spanier was not his employer or supervisor in 2001.

    Spanier is absolutely not guilty under the law. The jury wrongfully convicted him, i.e. they were a runaway jury. That is why Spanier's defense rested without calling any witnesses. They knew the prosecution did not prove its case under the law.

    To get a conviction, the prosecution used emotional appeals and cheap tricks, like displaying a photo of Sandusky and a boy during the closing argument.

    1. DiMario,
      Tim is correct. The jury wrongly convicted Spanier.

      That said, I remain frustrated that the defense attorneys in this case never challenged the authenticity of the email in question -- especially when its visual appearance clearly shows that something isn't quite right about it.

      Thanks for reading -- and stay tuned because what is coming next will confound you even more.