Monday, September 11

Ganim: Desperate to be Relevant

Sara Ganim's factually challenged report that Joe Paterno may have known about Sandusky's sexual abuse prior to 2001 was nothing more than a desperate attempt to revive a career that plummeted after she left the Harrisburg Patriot News

Ray Blehar

Sep 11, 2017, 11:19 PM EDT, Updated Sep 13, 10:04 PM EDT

On the morning of the Pitt-Penn State football game, CNN's Sara Ganim sided with her alma mater's rival to allege that Joe Paterno "knew" about Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of children prior to Sandusky's arrest in November 2011.

The release of the story on the morning of the  rivalry game was the "tell" that Ganim was desperate for attention and to regain some limelight.  That's something she's seen very little of since CNN made the mistake of hiring someone who purported herself to be an investigative reporter after winning a Pulitzer prize for local reporting in 2012.

The focus of Ganim's story was a previously unknown police report from November 2011 that contained some hearsay from Mike McQueary regarding Paterno's remarks to him.  McQueary alleged that Paterno, when being told about the shower incident in 2001, told him it was the second such report he'd received about Sandusky.

Ganim did not provide a link to - or screen shots of -- the purported police report from November 2011.  Nor did she provide any corroborating information from any of the subjects mentioned in her column and relied upon unnamed and/or unreliable sources.

But from the alleged hearsay, Ganim erroneously concluded:

"...Joe Paterno knew years before Jerry Sandusky's arrest that his longtime assistant might be sexually abusing children."

The prior incident being referenced in McQueary's hearsay statement was the 1998 child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky.

No sexual abuse (or child abuse) in 1998 incident

The 1998 investigation concluded with child welfare agents determining that showering with children did not rise to the level of child abuse -- let alone sexual abuse.   Here is a quote from lead investigator Jerry Lauro from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW):

"It didn't meet the criteria. If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

The investigation also resulted in the district attorney concluding there was insufficient evidence to charge Sandusky with indecent assault and lesser crimes, such as (misdemeanor) child endangerment. Ganim's Pulitzer prize winning reporting from 2011 and 2012 blamed Gricar for failing to stop Sandusky in 1998, but former Penn State police detective Ronald Schreffler had a different take.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

The results of the 1998 investigation -- and other evidence -- simply blows apart the rationale for Ganim's narrative that Paterno may have had knowledge of Sandusky's sexual abuse of children prior to 2001.   However, she drew more erroneous conclusions based on the 1998 incident.

For example:

"The police report casts fresh doubt on the mountain of denials by Paterno, his family and his loyalists that the coach knew anything of Sandusky's serial molestation before the 2001 incident."
No it doesn't --  because the 1998 investigation didn't conclude there was "molestation," let alone "serial molestation."
It contradicts the head coach's testimony before a grand jury and his published statement a week before he died in 2012 that he "had 'no inkling' that Sandusky might be a sexual deviant" until he heard the shocking allegation from McQueary."
No it doesn't --  because the 1998 investigation didn't conclude Sandusky was a "sexual deviant" or even a threat to the welfare of children.

Ganim's column also implies that Paterno was given detailed information about the 1998 incident from former Penn State Athletic Director Timothy Curley.   

Curley testified this spring that he had a conversation in 1998 with Paterno about that allegation. 

Court records of Curley's testimony show otherwise, as Curley believed the incident took place in the shower area, not inside the shower, and that Curley was not informed that Sandusky and the child were naked.

The evidence so far does not support Ganim's story that Paterno was aware of previous sexual acts by Sandusky in the least -- and there's little evidence to support many of the other conclusions she drew in the column.

Sandusky Trial Did NOT Avoid Penn State

Ganim's column was wrong about the prosecution's avoidance of pulling Penn State into the trial.

"We structured the whole case around avoiding Penn State," a source close to the prosecution said. "We were terrified (of acquittal)."

Indeed, in his opening remarks to Sandusky's jury, lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan said, "The Pennsylvania State University is not on trial." McGettigan wouldn't comment for this story.

As you will see below, Ganim cherry-picked just one part of the opening statement to make this conclusion to a mostly unwitting public.

However, in his next set of statements, McGettigan absolved The Second Mile of any responsibility for Sandusky and then followed up by implying that Penn State did.

Ganim, who covered the Sandusky trial as a local crime reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot News, apparently did not understand the significance of the prosecutions' order in which it had victim  testify.

An investigative reporter would have.

Victim 4 was the first to testify and he didn't testify because he was the most credible.  In fact, two of the charges related to his victimization were dismissed by the trial judge.  Moreover, his testimony put the prosecution's entire case at risk because his testimony was unlike any of the other victims who had been victimized over a long period of time by Sandusky.

While all of the other long-term victims testified to molestation occurring in Sandusky's home, Victim 4 testified that it never happened there. He alleged that all victimization took place in the Penn State locker rooms, at Toftrees, or at hotels were the football team stayed.

Not only did the prosecution use Victim 4 make the case about Penn State, but it specifically zeroed in on Penn State football.

It would be hard for someone to legitimately argue otherwise.

If this case was about the suffering of the victims, then the prosecution should have presented the only known, confirmed victim of anal rape -- Victim 9 -- on the stand first.  The jury was emotionally upset after he testified and they convicted Sandusky on all related charges.

If this case was not about Penn State, then why not present the victims in the order they were found during the investigation?   Aaron Fisher was a compelling witness and the jury convicted on all related charges.

There is little doubt that the reason why Victim 9 and/or Fisher didn't testify first was because none of their victimization took place on the Penn State campus.

As layed out above, it was clear from the opening statement and through the presentation of the witnesses that the prosecutors were utilizing the Sandusky trial to place blame on Penn State officials for failing to protect children from Sandusky.  At the same time, they utilized the trial to absolve everyone else, especially The Second Mile, of the failing to carry out their legal responsibilities to do the same..

Ganim's column also contained this incredible passage about the  Sandusky trial, according to her "source close to the prosecution."

"They hated the whole Penn State conspiracy thing" 
Oh, really?

The grand jury presentment written by the prosecutors in the fall of 2012 that formed the basis for the charges against Penn State officials was titled as the "Conspiracy of Silence."

The Sandusky trial evidence in no way supports the conclusions from her (alleged) unnamed source.

Does Ganim really believe the manure she shoveled in this column or was she just desperate to write something -- anything -- to be relevant?

Regardless, the evidence so far shows that she cannot separate fact from fiction or fantasy from reality.

Unreliable Sources

As shown just above, any reasonable person familiar with the facts of the Sandusky case can easily debunk her stories and discredit her sources.

Ganim's May 2016 story alleged that in 1971, Jerry Sandusky picked up a 15 year-old hitch-hiker dubbed Victim A, then Sandusky molested him.

Here's Ganim's factually challenged account:

"Victim A says he was hitchhiking when Sandusky picked him up, bought him beer, gave him pot -- and then attacked him as he was standing at a urinal in a Penn State bathroom.
"I felt his presence behind me," he said. "I felt his left knee on the back of my knee, and his arms went around me, grabbing my ..." he trails off. "He said, 'Let me help you with this.'"
Victim A said he jerked his head back, hitting Sandusky in the jaw. His head started bleeding and they both fell to the floor.
"Then there was a wrestling session," he says. "And I lost. One thing led to another and the crime happened."
Victim A was already a troubled kid. During a church sleepover the year before, he said he was molested by a local priest. When he tried to report it, he was thrown out of the church. He was living with foster parents when Sandusky attacked him.

A day after the assault, Victim A's foster mom noticed the cut on his head. She pestered him about what happened. And when he told her, she and her husband -- who owned a local bowling alley and knew many high-ranking school officials -- called Penn State against his wishes. "I was blindsided," he said, adding that his foster father told him, "I assure you the police won't be called, but you gotta tell these people what happened."

He found himself on the phone with two men from Penn State.
"I tell them what happened -- well, I couldn't get it out of me that I was -- I can't even tell it to this day. It's just degrading -- that I was raped," he said.
"I told the story up to a certain point. I told them that he grabbed me and that I got the hell out of there."
He insisted that he "made it very clear" it was a sexual attack.
"I made it clear there were things done to me that I just can't believe could have been done to me and I couldn't escape. I said, 'I'm very upset and scared and I couldn't believe I let my guard down.' They listened to me. And then all hell broke loose.
"They were asking me my motive, why I would say this about someone who has done so many good things.

The details of the story reveal that Victim A was lying to Ganim because they are not aligned with the  method of operation and ritualistic nature of Sandusky's crimes.  Ganim did not challenge any of this account, though she knew, or should have known, from her background as a former PSU student, Centre Daily Times reporter, and her coverage of the trial, that none of the details fit.

However, Victim A's account of the follow up by his foster parents should have been too much for any reasonable person to believe.

Why would they call Penn State if their foster child was a rape victim?  Shouldn't they have called the police or DPW?   And even if they wanted to confront Paterno, they didn't need to call Penn State. His home telephone number was always listed in the local phone book.

The failure of Ganim to fact check the 1971 story became obvious when the story alleged that Paterno didn't believe Victim A because of all the good things Jerry Sandusky did for the community.

Sandusky did not start The Second Mile charity until 1977 and had no track record of good works up to that point.

This story had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, but Ganim went forward with it and CNN published it and is standing by it.  Moreover, CNN and Ganim seemingly couldn't have cared less regarding Victim A's molestation by a priest.   This was another example of Ganim's pattern of putting the emphasis of her writing on demeaning Penn State officials instead of on the safety and welfare of children.

However, the death blow to this story was when Ganim eventually revealed the corroborating source of Victim A's allegations was (very recently deceased) State College resident, Bernie McCue.

McCue was a well known Paterno hater who was featured in the movie, Happy Valley, as he conducted a one man protest at the Paterno statue. McCue spent much of his time scribbling vulgar, derogatory messages in newspapers and magazines with his red pen, then leaving them in public places for people to discover.  

It was clear to anyone with a functioning brain that McCue was a biased source at best and a very unreliable one at that.

And so was/is Mike McQueary.

But unreliable sources -- and the facts -- seemingly don't matter to Ganim.

Ganim's implication that McQueary's abuse claim was significant in the prosecution of ten boys was flatly refuted by the Moulton Report.  From the column:

McQueary's claim of abuse and other allegations led to Sandusky's conviction in 2012 for sexually abusing 10 boys over 15 years, including three victims after the 2001 locker room incident. 

While the Moulton Report confirmed that McQueary's report was important in restarting the investigation, the report concluded key evidence leading to the eventual arrest and conviction of Sandusky was the 1998 police report.   That report, allegedly obtained by the state police in January 2011, led to the identification of Victims 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Interestingly, the police never identified a victim in the McQueary incident, most likely because no victim has corroborated McQueary's account of slapping noises coming from the shower followed by a face-to-face encounter -- that he alleged happened on February 9, 2011.

The only thing remotely accurate about Ganim's recent story was that the details of McQueary's discussion with Paterno in 2001 still remain a matter of debate -- and for good reason.

They've never been corroborated by anyone in an actual court case.

"Jerry doesn't like girls"

Ganim has pushed the Penn State cover up narrative all along -- no matter how ridiculous the scenarios.

In Saturday's story, she provided yet another incredible scenario in which Paterno confided to McQueary that Dottie Sandusky told his wife, Sue, that Jerry doesn't like girls.

"The police report also notes, again according to McQueary, that Paterno told the young assistant that his wife, Sue Paterno, once had told the head coach that Sandusky's wife, Dottie Sandusky, "told her Jerry doesn't like girls."
Attorneys for the Paterno family and for Dottie Sandusky did not respond to CNN's requests for comment."

A legal representative of the Paterno family categorically denied today that "Sue and Dottie ever had that conversation."

Dottie Sandusky also rejected the hearsay account given by McQueary.  She wrote:

"I never said that.  Jer helped lots of girls - fact is two testified at trial."

It is simply not believable that Dottie Sandusky would imply that her husband was a homosexual or a preferential sexual child molester to the wife of his former employer.

It also strains credulity that Joe Paterno, who told McQueary on that February 2001 Saturday morning that he wouldn't even consider talking to him about a full time assistant coaching job, would then turn around and  disclose information of a personal nature about a former employee (to a non-employee).

In summary, this whole story is so incredible that it seems that the entire thing has been fabricated.

And maybe it was....

Mistake or Fabrication?
One of the most interesting aspects about the Sandusky criminal case is that the key witness, McQueary, did not get the year of the incident correct when he first reported it to the police.

If this was as traumatic an incident as McQueary alleged (recall that he was visibly shaken) then there is very little chance that he could not have remembered the year (according to research on trauma and memory).

In what can only be described as an extreme case of irony, analysis reveals that Ganim, whose reporting is shoddy at best, may have confused the year of the newly discovered police report.

"McQueary's police interview was conducted by a state trooper on November 23, 2011, just two weeks after Sandusky's arrest. It followed up on an earlier interview and focused on McQueary's conversation with Joe Paterno on that Saturday morning in 2001. The trooper could not be reached for comment."

More importantly....

"McQueary never testified publicly about the police report or the new details it reveals. The report was written days after Sandusky's arrest in 2011, soon after the 2001 allegation first came to the attention of police."

According to the Moulton Report (see below), McQueary originally contacted police about the 2001 incident on November 10, 2010 and the police interviewed him on November 22, 2010.   Sandusky was arrested on November 5, 2011.

 As is often the case, police reports may not be written until a day or two after an investigative event occurs.  The 1998 investigation, which was the focus of Ganim's recent allegations that Paterno may have known of earlier sexual abuse by Sandusky, closed on June 1, 1998 but the report was not finalized until June 3rd.

The November 22, 2010 interview with McQueary was not documented in a police report until November 23, 2010.

Ganim later wrote, ironically under the subheading "Degrees of Detail," that the police interview with McQueary occurred on November 23, 2011 -- one year to the day later.

Coincidence?  Or a mistake?

It's easy to get years mixed up, especially just as the calendar turns over.

Pennsylvania state trooper Scott Rossman worked the Jerry Sandusky case from 2009 through Sandusky's arrest in 2011.  His signature appears at the bottom of the two page 2010 report.  As you will read, this report contains none of the sensational allegations that appeared in Ganim's column.

Time for Sara Ganim to put forth some reality instead of putting forth fantasies.

If she and CNN have a police report from November 23, 2011, then  let's see it.


  1. I think the major purpose of Ganim's article was hidden in two sentences where she said the leaking of the old police report was "no accident" and then in the next sentence said Mike McQueary is writing a book on the "Sandusky drama."

    The implication is that it was leaked to promote interest in McQueary's book. McQueary may have leaked it himself as he would have been entitled to a copy of the interview he gave to police.

    I think the Nov. 23, 2011, date is correct, and it was a rehearsal interview to prepare McQueary for the Sandusky and Curley-Schultz preliminary hearings in Dec. 2011.

    Paterno was re-interviewed about the same time in Nov. 2011 according to a leaked transcript.

    I strongly agree that Ganim should have put a copy of the police report online. I suspect she didn't because it shows something the prosecution wants hidden such as the police leading McQueary or McQueary contradicting his later testimony.

    1. Tim,
      Thank you for your comment.

      You may indeed be correct about a possible rehearsal interview and McQueary being the leaker to promote his book.

      However, I wouldn't rule out Stacy Parks Miller as a source of this leak because Miller and Ganim are friends -- and Miller has done quite a few questionable things while DA. She allegedly forged a judges signature. She also was involved in ex parte communications with judges.

      In any case, Ganim is clearly confused either about when the police first learned about the 2001 incident or when the purported interview took place.

      Paterno was interviewed in October 2011 just prior to the charges being filed. I believe that interview occurred because the presentment was about to be filed and that they wanted to have JVP on the record a second time regarding McQueary's story. He gave a rather equivocating statement the first time.

      Ganim has a track record of fabricating information and relying on dubious sources. If this report exists, let's see it.

    2. Would county DA, Stacy Parks Miller, be able to get a copy of a 2011 state police interview from the Attorney General's Sandusky case?

      It may not have been McQueary who leaked it but it seems it would have been someone involved in the Sandusky prosecution. Maybe one of the prosecutors felt they owed McQueary a favor or wanted to curry favor so he treats them well in his book.

      McQueary might know a lot of dirt, including his testimony that a prosecutor told him they were about to leak the Sandusky grand jury presentment. He may yet be called to testify about that for Sandusky's appeal.

      Ganim reported that McQueary was writing a book on the "Sandusky drama" so it sounds like McQueary was a source at least for that. I've not seen any other report that McQueary is writing a book.

      I wouldn't be surprised if McQueary didn't contact all the prosecutors he dealt with to give them a heads up or even ask for their help with his book. McQueary doesn't impress me as the kind of guy who could write a book by himself. He may need a ghost writer or co-author.

    3. No doubt in my mind she could get a hold of that report. She could have gotten it from Trooper Rossman, who is friends of sorts with the McQ family.

      However, I still am doubtful about its existence. If this report existed in 2011, then why didn't any of the defense teams get a copy of it in discovery?

      Also, if it said that Joe knew about 1998, there is little doubt that the AG would have shared it with Louis Freeh.

      Finally, if it had confirming information that Joe knew about 1998, it would have been used at the Spanier trial by the prosecution to show that everyone of the higher ups and PSU was looped in about 1998 -- except the University President. That would have been compelling evidence that Spanier was lying.

    4. Ganim explained how they didn't want to bring up Paterno and how prosecutors threatened the Sandusky defense not to bring it up. They may have felt the same way about the Spanier trial.

      At the Sandusky trial, the defense objected to any hearsay by McQueary and the judge quickly cut off questioning about what Paterno told McQueary.

      Ganim's article suggests that the prosecutors attempt to question McQueary about Paterno's comments was just a farce. It doesn't usually help the defense when they object and cut off testimony. It makes the jury thinks the defense is hiding something damaging.

      McQueary was able to testify about what Paterno told him at the two preliminary hearings because the rules on hearsay are less strict there. He used that to his advantage to advance his lawsuit with hearsay that Paterno warned him that PSU would scapegoat him and Old Main screwed it up.

      Spanier put on no defense, and wasn't on trial for perjury. I haven't seen that transcript but I expect his defense would have objected to any McQueary hearsay.

      I don't know how Spanier was convicted when McQueary never spoke to him and both Curley and Schultz testified they never told Spanier about a sexual assault. The prosecution had no witnesses that said anything negative about Spanier. It was a runaway jury that had been brainwashed by 5 years of negative media.

  2. This newly revealed police report is evidence of perjury by Mike McQueary. At the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing in Dec. 2011, McQueary was asked by prosecutor Bruce Beemer "What did he [Paterno] tell you?"

    McQueary said nothing about Paterno saying that this "was the second complaint" about Sandusky as he stated in this Nov. 2011 police report.

    Mike McQueary swore "to tell the whole truth" and he clearly did not according to this police report.

    Even more troubling are Ganim's revelations that the prosecution didn't want Paterno's "second complaint" statement to be made public.

    Why then would prosecutor Beemer question McQueary about what Paterno told him in 2001 unless he knew McQueary was not going to mention Paterno's "second complaint" comment.

    One obvious possibility is that prosecutors suborned perjury from McQueary by instructing him not to mention Paterno's "second complaint" comment.

    If I was on Sandusky's appeal, I'd want to question McQueary about that.

    1. Tim,
      Perjury is a material false statement under oath.

      While I'm not a lawyer, I don't think an omission or a non-answer is perjury. An omission could simply be a result of a faulty memory --or in Mike's case, he hadn't made up that part of the story when he testified at the preliminary hearing (sarcasm, sort of).

      As the record shows, Mike added new details seemingly every time he testified -- and that is really not unusual in terms of how memory works. As you recall an event or incident, it is normal for more pieces the memory to return -- however, the accuracy of those pieces is questionable because they may have been influenced by later information.

      That is one of the reasons why there are statute of limitations on crimes.

      And that is WHY the Commonwealth wrong to charge Curley and Schultz (then Spanier) with FTR and perjury charges.

    2. Then why does the witness swear to tell "the whole truth?"

      So it's not perjury in your book if a witness in a murder trial testifies that the defendant told him "I shot him." when the witness knows he was actually told, "I shot him in self defense."

      Ganim dates the police report as Nov. 23, 2011. McQueary testified on Dec. 16, 2011. Maybe that means McQueary can't remember anything over 3 weeks old.

    3. Tim,
      That probably would not be perjury, however, I would imagine the defense attorney would ask him about the remainder ("in self defense") on cross-examination.

      Perjury is difficult to prove. Unless someone else was there when the defendant told the testifying witness "I shot him in self-defense," it would be impossible to bring perjury charges.

      That's why the perjury charges allegations against Tim and Gary in the Sandusky grand jury report were preposterous (because they didn't confirm what Mike reported to them in 2001). No one was there to corroborate Mike's account so no one knows what he actually said (including Mike!)

    4. If it's not perjury then what charges could be brought if a witness deliberately did not tell the "whole truth"?

      Maybe contempt of court or obstruction charges?

      I think it is clear they were bogus perjury and failure to report charges brought just to remove Tim and Gary as defense witnesses for Sandusky.

  3. I agree with your analysis. Even if he remembered the 1998 Sandusky investigation, Paterno answered truthfully at the grand jury because the question didn't ask about allegations of child abuse.

    The grand jury question was,

    "Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"

    "Inappropriate sexual conduct" was a rather odd phrase as any sexual conduct with a child is inappropriate. Had they left out "sexual" Paterno may have answered yes.

    1. Tim,
      It seems to me that Ganim, like Louis Freeh, was using the 2012 conviction in the 1998 Victim 6 incident as evidence that Penn State knew the incident was sexual.

      That is hindsight bias and it is also erroneous because the convictions related to Victim 6 were non-contact offenses. Sandusky was found not guilty of indecent assault.

      In 1998, the child welfare agents questioned Victim 6 repeatedly regarding whether there was contact with Sandusky's genitalia and if Sandusky was sexually aroused. Victim 6 consistently answered those questions negatively then and at the trial in 2012.

    2. I agree about hindsight bias.

      The trial and the Freeh Report were a studies in illogical reasoning and in ignoring reasonable doubt.

      The victims' testimony was used to corroborate McQueary, and McQueary was used to corroborate the victims.

  4. Did you notice that portions of the trial transcript you illustrated make no sense?

    The last word in the last sentence, benefaction, means donation. It makes no sense in that context.

    I believe what the prosecutor actually said was "Is it possible that those signs could have been responded to in a different, better fashion?"

    I'm not sure what the correct translation is for the following statement:

    "Now is it possible that earlier signs of abuse were observed by or heard of by persons involved in the Second Mile occurred? No."

    "Occurred" makes no sense in that sentence.

    So much for the accuracy of trial transcripts. Maybe Paterno did actually say "Was it a sexual nature?" and not "It was a sexual nature."

  5. Sara Ganim was a child when she supposedly "broke" the Sandusky story. And she was a child when she received her contrived Pulitzer. She was also still a child when she was hired by CNN. And unfortunately, she still hasn't achieved womanhood because she just won't do the right thing and admit she was misled and used by the massively corrupt PA Attorney General's office.

    She also needs to admit that the massively corrupt mainstream media, not just CNN, is being used to divide this country with continuous lies and propaganda. But the problem is, who would give her airtime to do this?

    Maybe, when she actually becomes a woman, she can write a book exposing the entire government co-opting of our "news" media.

    1. Ganim could write a much more compelling series of articles by exposing the real facts. She might even win a Pulitzer for investigative reporting.

      I guess she's just too invested in the Attorney General's propaganda.

  6. Ganim is following the script. Perhaps she read the article in the June National Geographic magazine "Why We Lie". Repeating a lie multiple times, if not debunked, becomes the truth. In fact when confronted with conflicting evidence, people still believe the lie because it has been repeated so many times. NOBODY in this fiasco has had the guts to point fingers and name names. Al Lord tried and got scant support. The Paterno's capitulated. Spanier's attorney forgot how to defend a client or didn't have the guts to impeach a witness.

    Ganim has science on her side, and as long as the New York Yimes, Washington Post, and US Today swallow her garbage, she wins.

    Ganim, like the "victims", the prosecutors, and the victims attorneys have a license to lie, and until someone has the guts to revoke that license, they rule the roost.

    Evil triumphs because good men do nothing. The only way to win is to debunk the lie immediately and rigorously. You take the fight to the enemy. You do not play nice, you do not play politically correct. You drive fiercely toward the truth. Sadly, nobody had the guts to do that.

  7. I haven't seen that the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. report on Ganim's story. Maybe that didn't "swallow her garbage" this time.

    I haven't even seen some local news source, like State College News and Onward State, report her story.

  8. Ganim ignored that Paterno's comment that 2001 was the "second complaint" is a repudiation of the unbelievable, uncorroborated and uninvestigated allegations that Paterno received complaints about Sandusky in 1971 and 1976.

    We know 1998 was the first complaint, officially ruled unfounded, that Paterno heard about and McQueary's 2001 complaint was the second.

    Instead, Ganim just illogically dredged those old allegations up again and implies that this new revelation somehow makes the 1970s claims more credible. Just the opposite is true.