Wednesday, August 8

McQueary & More Evidence of Corbett's Vendetta

Mike McQueary's November 2010 police interview was not in an attempt to find more victims to prosecute Jerry Sandusky.  It was about getting evidence to implicate Graham Spanier.

Ray Blehar
Aug. 8, 2018, 10:26 PM EDT, Updated Aug. 9, 2018, 9:50 AM EDT

Mike McQueary's various versions of the 2001 incident have been examined and re-examined many times over, however, there is one aspect of his story that hasn't received much attention. That overlooked piece of the story critically important to understanding that the Jerry Sandusky investigation was primarily utilized by former Attorney General (AG) /Governor Tom Corbett to carry out a vendetta against former Penn State University (PSU) President Graham Spanier.

To be clear, the investigation and prosecution of Sandusky became "real" only when it became a  prerequisite for taking down Spanier.

McQueary was initially contacted by Agent Anthony Sassano of the Office of Attorney General (OAG)  and Trooper Scott Rossman of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on November 10, 2010 --
McQueary deferred speaking with them until he could meet with his attorney, Timothy Fleming.   On November 22nd, Sassano and Rossman met with McQueary in Fleming's office, where McQueary gave his initial version of events.

According to Sassano's investigation report, McQueary gave a rather extensive account of what he observed in the locker room.  In particular, he stated that the boy he observed was between 8 and 13 years old and was about five feet high.  Sassano asked if the boy might have been 16 years old and McQueary said definitely not.  McQueary also related that he looked directly at Sandusky and the boy and that the boy had a surprised look on his face.

McQueary Backpedals

The very next day, McQueary submitted a hand written statement to the police that shows he realized he overplayed his hand (i.e., overly embellished what he saw) when giving his original story to investigators.

The person who would become the OAG's star witness against Spanier, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz was backpedaling -- and saying he wasn't quite sure what he saw.  More specifically, he "would not be able to recognize the boy.  Both individuals were wet and looks were quick."  

It is likely that McQueary feared that he may be asked to identify the boy or, worse yet, provide information for the police to make a sketch of the alleged victim, who, based on the preponderance of the evidence, he never saw.

If the latter is what he was afraid of, his fears were unwarranted.

The Non-Search for Victims

Even though Corbett's request for a grand jury clearly stated that Sandusky met boys through his founding and leadership of The Second Mile charity, there was no effort to contact the charity until January 2011....and that was only after McQueary, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley testified to the grand jury and didn't implicate Spanier in the decisions about the 2001 shower incident.

January 2011 is also important in another way.  That is the month when the mother of Victim 6 showed the OAG and PSP investigators Sandusky's autobiography, "Touched" and the photographs of some of the eventual victims.

Photographs of eventual/potential victims were never shown to McQueary

Despite having photographs of many boys who may have been in contact with Sandusky circa 2001, investigators never bothered to run the pictures by McQueary in the event he would recognize one of them as the shower victim.

Foot stomp!
The Moulton Report timeline of the investigation confirms that investigators never re-interviewed McQueary in an attempt to identify the shower victim.

That would be highly unusual for a case that was desperate to find victims to corroborate Aaron Fisher's accusations in order to bring charges against Sandusky.

Unless, of course, they weren't all that interested in finding victims and charging Sandusky.

Sixteen Year Old?

As has reported many times over, the OAG was sitting on evidence, such as the 1998 University Park police report, and other excellent leads.  However, it appears that Agent Sassano was aware of a possible sixteen year-old victim at the time he interviewed McQueary.

If he wasn't aware, then why would he ask McQueary if the boy he saw could have been sixteen?  Note that the complainant  in the case, Aaron Fisher, would have been just a little over 7 years-old at the time of the 2002 (sic) incident.  So Sassano wasn't asking if McQueary saw Fisher.

This appears to be another instance of the AG sitting on evidence that they had another potential victim, aside from Fisher, at the time they interviewed McQueary.

As such, the anonymous tip on McQueary was not the big break in the case that finally corroborated Fisher.

McQueary was the break in the case that allowed Corbett to pursue Spanier.

Budget Battle Sparked Sandusky Investigation

As the timeline below clearly shows, the Sandusky investigation didn't get serious until the March 2011 budget battle between Corbett and Spanier.   After the battle, witnesses were brought to the grand jury in rapid succession.

To be sure, Corbett became upset with Spanier over a perceived campaign slight in October 2010 and that's why the investigation turned toward McQueary and PSU.  However, the evidence shows the foot dragging continued on the investigation until March 2011.

After Corbett and Spanier's public feud over the education budget, and Corbett was subsequently torn to shreds by the media, the impetuous former Governor had enough.  He was going to use the criminal justice system to take out another opponent, just like the evidence shows he did with the Computergate and Bonusgate cases.

His main man, Frank Fina, who prosecuted those cases, would be called on again to do the dirty work.

Coming soon: The Pennsylvania Railroad


  1. It certainly seems like either amazing incompetence or willful neglect by Corbett's investigators. One of the first things investigators should have done when Corbett got the case in March 2009 was read Sandusky's book and contact the boys pictured in it.

    Sandusky's book was published in 2001, right around the time of the shower incident McQueary witnessed. Once McQueary came forward, Sandusky's book would have been an even more important clue.

    Your "Sandusky Investigation Timeline" is just circumstantial evidence that it was a Corbett vendetta against Spanier. There are other possible explanations, such as Corbett's replacement, William Ryan, deciding to kick the case into high gear for whatever reason.

    It also might have simply been that momentum was building after McQueary was found and Ganim's article about the Sandusky Grand Jury in March 2011. Ganim's article could have put a lot of pressure on the OAG to pursue the case more vigorously. Maybe they would have let it the case die without Ganim exposing it.

    1. Tim,
      Thanks for you comments.

      Many cases, including many murder cases, have been made on circumstantial evidence. Some murder cases have been successfully prosecuted despite the absence of a dead body.

      The Moulton Report confirmed the watershed event in the Sandusky investigation was the OAG obtaining the 1998 police report in January 2011. Three eventual victims (V5, V6, and V7) were identified in January 2011 but they weren't brought to the grand jury until March. Meanwhile, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testified in late January.

      The grand jury that heard the testimony in January was dismissed and a new one was seated in March. However, that doesn't explain the lack of action on the case.

      A 4th potential victim (Victim 4) was identified in February (by Victim 7). V4 could have been easily found in seconds by running a criminal records check -- but as it turned out, he wasn't contacted until April.

      The evidence proves that Ganim's column had no impact on victim's coming forward and what went down is the opposite of what you wrote. The Patriot News was working with the OAG/Corbett and they released the column in an effort to smear Spanier and PSU. The evidence also shows that the Patriot News knew about the grand jury investigation of Sandusky as early as September 2010.

      Graham Spanier also agrees that it was the budget battle that did him in.

      This wasn't about incompetence or neglect. This was something far more nefarious.

    2. Video rebukes OAG assertion that searching Sandusky's home in 2009 could result in evidence going stale is nonsense.

  2. It's nice to see that you finally arrived at ground zero. Frank (The Rat) Fina and his cabal! Add Ron (The Stooge) Tomalis as Corbett's lieutenant to keep Frazier and Peetz in line. As Frazier was running the Special Investigative Committee, he was negotiating Merck's Vioxx liability with the OAG. Even Kathy the Klewless Kane remarked at how Merck got off so cheaply, as the deal was sealed just before she took office.

    I'm still puzzled as to why a narrative that had more gaping holes than the surface of Yucca Flats did not pique the curiosity of Molton for further investigation. Did someone put a muzzle on him?

    1. Gregory,
      Thanks for your comments.

      Fina was clearly Corbett's hatchet man, but I don't Corbett is at the top of the totem pole. Corbett's not that smart.

      As for Moulton, he ended up with a few of the corrupt holdovers on his investigative team and he got no cooperation from the Pennsylvania State Police. That said, Moulton didn't think outside the box when drawing his conclusions and ended up being confounded by the delays in getting search warrants and to looking into The Second Mile.

      The delays, in reality, weren't delays at all. The obtaining of a search warrant and asking TSM for participant lists were simply "checking off all the boxes" for completing the investigation. Those things weren't done to assist in searching for victims.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.