Fina Feared Being "Nifonged" By Kane (Part 1)

Attorney General Kane stated the emails in the "porngate" prompted Fina's attack on her, however, Fina also feared that Moulton's investigation could cause him to be disbarred.  

By

Ray Blehar

At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.

Sound familiar?

In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury.  Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Sandusky trial Judge John Cleland mentioned that the Curley and Schultz charges could have been used as a means to "hamstring the defense" (see page 169).   Judge Cleland then went on to caution Fina about using the email evidence and Schultz file for the Sandusky prosecution, stating it might "risk your case against Curley and Schultz."  

Unbelievably, prosecutor McGettigan replied, "but we're not going to try that case."

What was going on?

The notes of former PSU President Rod Erickson (below) confirm that on or about January 2012, the OAG was keeping Old Main informed of the ongoing grand jury investigations of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.   The amount of information shared by the OAG was far more than current AG Kathleen Kane allegedly shared with the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

But the most important fact contained in the notes was that Fina shared his case strategy with Old Main.  Specifically, that he "expected" Curley and Schultz "to flip"(on Spanier). 

Fina's "flip" strategy is at the root of the misconduct in the Conspiracy of Silence (CoS) case.    If the flip had happened, Fina would have made the case against Spanier on the testimony of Curley and/or Schultz -- and very likely, Cynthia Baldwin.  Securing a plea deal would have likely ensured that Fina's ethical violations would have remained hidden.    

When the flip didn't happen -- and Kane was elected on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation -- Fina looked in the mirror and saw Mike Nifong.

The PSU Case Is Duke Lacrosse on Steroids

Fina and Nifong: Mirror misconduct?

Former DA Mike Nifong was disbarred over the Duke lacrosse case, in which he filed charges based on the inconsistent and unsupported testimony of the key witness, suppressed exculpatory and other relevant evidence, used questionable evidence, and made highly prejudicial statements in the press.

The North Carolina State Bar Committee called the case a "fiasco" and said Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation."


Frank Fina's actions related to the CoS case were remarkably similar to Nifong's, however the stakes in the were much higher in Pennsylvania than they were in North Carolina.  Nifong was using the Duke rape allegations to revive his struggling election campaign.  

Fina used McQueary's dubious rape story to paint PSU officials as enablers of Sandusky's abuse. The goal, likely set by his boss, Tom Corbett, was to scapegoat Spanier for directing Curley and Schultz not to report the incident.  The abuse of grand jury secrecy rules in leaking the presentment (and other evidence) was done to deflect attention away from the Commonwealth's child protective services (and the state police's) failures to protect children from Sandusky.  Had the truth gotten out, the Commonwealth (e.g., Centre County CYS) likely would have been facing lawsuits -- not Penn State.

McQueary Gave "More Vivid" Description in 2010

It is a matter of public record that McQueary's testimony and public statements about the 2001 incident have been consistently inconsistent.  

What is not on the public record - until now - is that Erickson notes confirm that McQueary gave a "more vivid" description to "Detectives - ten years later" than he did in 2001.  The notes also reveal the tortured reasoning by prosecutors to use McQueary's unreliable and unsupported testimony to charge PSU officials.

Lines 1-5:  McQueary denied seeing anything sexual to Dr. Dranov.

Lines 6-7: McQueary lied to Dranov and his father about what he saw. 

Lines 8-9:  Dr. Dranov's, Curley's, and Schultz's stories seem "same."

Lines 10-11: McQueary told different version to Curley and Schultz than he did to Dranov and his father.

Lines 17-21:  When questioned "by police.. Detectives - 10 years later," McQueary gave "more vivid" version "than before." 

It appears that lead prosecutor Fina was pulling a Nifong when he charged Curley and Schultz with failure to report and perjury and then approved a grand jury presentment that stated McQueary was an "extremely credible" witness.  

Fina also had to ignore physical evidence to believe McQueary's story.

The Obstruction in the Shower

Based on the description of the incident provided by Dr. Dranov and the physical properties of the locker room, it is highly probable that McQueary did not see Sandusky and the boy while they in the showers.   According to the notes, the "kid looked out from behind the obstruction." "Other three behind" refers to the number of shower heads that would be positioned behind the victim.

There is only one obstruction to the victim could have looked out from behind if McQueary was viewing the incident through the mirror (as shown below) and it is on the "far right" looking out of the shower. 

If the victim and Sandusky were positioned in that location, they would have been out of the "line of sight" of McQueary. 

Lines 20-21:  "kid looked out from behind the obstruction."

Lines 22-23:  "Actually far right, other 3 behind"   "line of sight"

While I believe that McQueary heard slapping sounds and saw Sandusky and a minor youth exit the shower, the physical properties of the locker room made it impossible for him to see in and observe contact.  I also believe Fina knew that to be the situation, but didn't let that evidence stand in the way of his prosecution of PSU officials.  The janitor incident is germane.

Spanier's version

Graham Spanier's grand jury testimony also was the same as Curley and Schultz's -- as it should have been because they informed him of the incident.  

The former PSU President testified (page 14) that "they were horsing around in the shower. I believe that was the language that was used."  When Fina (page 24) asked if it was possible the report was "sexual in nature," Spanier (page 25) responded, "No... what was reported was not a report of any activity that was sexual in nature."

Once again, another individual testified to not being informed of anything sexual being reported about the 2001 incident.  For those keeping score at home, that was five people, including Mike's father, who testified that explicit details were not shared by Mike. 

Fina would eventually charge three of the five with perjury, even though there was no corroboration of Mike's account.

Conclusion
When Duke accuser Crystal Mangum changed her story and was no longer certain she was raped, Nifong dropped the rape charges.  

Conversely, Fina continued to press forward with the perjury and failure to report charges even though detectives believed McQueary gave a more vivid description in 2010 than he did in 2001. 

Weighing the evidence so far, it appears that Fina's conduct related to the CoS case was more unethical than Mike Nifong's at Duke.  But this is just the beginning of the story.

Next: Part 2: Evidence Suppression

PSU BOT could have changed course of history by conducting just ONE interview

When the news of the Sandusky charges and grand jury presentment were released, the public believed that Mike McQueary reported a rape to Joe Paterno.  Instead of interviewing McQueary and finding out what he actually said, the PSU BOT put its trust in a one-sided prosecutorial document.

By
Ray Blehar

The most frustrating thing about the Sandusky scandal and its affect on Penn State is that the entire situation could have been avoided if our BOT had conducted just one interview.  If on Saturday, November 5th or any other following day, had they reached out to Mike McQueary to find out what he actually told Joe Paterno in February 2001, the course of history could have been changed.

Instead of interviewing McQueary, the PSU BOT put its trust in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.  This was quite an astonishing thing, considering numerous members of the BOT had legal degrees and obviously knew that a grand jury presentment is a one-sided prosecutorial document containing summaries of testimony.  Even those who were not lawyers on the Board at the time deserve no reprieve for not understanding what a presentment was -- it was one google search away.

To be clear, the grand jury presentment didn't contain not a single quote from Mike McQueary. It also did not report any quotes from Joe Paterno.

Conversely, it contained partial and full quotes from Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, none of whom stated that a rape or anything sexual was reported to them by McQueary.

So on one side, there were no quotes from Paterno and McQueary, who were said to have reported something of a sexual nature and sexual intercourse, respectively.  On the other side, Curley, Schutlz, and Spanier were all quoted and among those quotes were "inappropriate conduct," "horsing around," and "disturbing."  Obviously, there was a gap here between the two parties that required some explanation.

That explanation didn't come until December 16, 2011, when Mike McQueary testified that the preliminary hearing of Curley and Schultz.  It was then that the world found out that he had "never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one."  McQueary also stated he never used the term "sodomy" with Coach Paterno.  He then stated he didn't see Sandusky's genitals touching the boy.  Similarly, McQueary testified that he did not use those specific terms with Curley and Schultz and was often uncertain (using the term, "I would have told them") about what he actually said.

Those very facts could have been used by the PSU BOT in a statement defending University employees Curley and Schultz against the perjury charges and challenging the veracity of the criminal allegations against contained in the grand jury presentment.  

The course of history could have been changed.

But rather than gather facts (according to John Surma, the BOT didn't conduct a legal review), the 11/9/11 BOT just went along with a presentment that has, like the Freeh Report, been severely discredited by the information that has come forth since then.

The bottom line is that the 11/9/11 BOT not only didn't act responsibly when faced with some of the most serious allegations in the school's history -- they did less than the absolute minimum.

Patriot News: Part 2 of 9: Chapter 8, Not Anal Rape

When "anal rape" was an allegation in the Sandusky case it was repeated again and again.  When "anal rape" became an acquittal, it was subject to a media blackout.

By

Ray Blehar

The November 5th, 2011 grand jury presentment's statement that a young boy was "being subjected to sexual intercourse by a naked Sandusky" resulted in public outrage at Penn State.  Media broadcasts and newspapers repeated the story that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the PSU locker rooms for days on end.  

That media drumbeat resulted in Paterno and Spanier losing their jobs -- primarily because of  that single (inflammatory) allegation.

On November 11th, Sara Ganim, after meeting with her editors and local DAs,  began reporting the incident as an "anal rape" instead of the legal term Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. Allegedly, this was to save "copy" in her columns.   However, her report about McQueary's report of an "anal rape" would be proven inaccurate about one month later.

The December 16^th, preliminary hearing testimony of Mike McQueary proved the falsity of the Sandusky grand jury presentment’s statement that he had reported seeing Sandusky engaged in sexual intercourse with a young boy.  It also refuted the Patriot News (P-N) story that McQueary had  reported an “anal rape” to Paterno.

McQueary testified[1] that he never used the words “anal or rape in this since day one” in discussing the incident with Paterno.[2]   

The reports by the OAG and the P-N claiming that McQueary provided graphic details of that incident to Paterno caused a media firestorm and caused irreparable harm to PSU.  

The P-N's error was so egregious that it should have resulted in a front page correction and perhaps even an apology.  Those never came.  In addition, the P-N also never criticized the OAG for publishing that known falsehood in the grand jury presentment.  It was clear that the paper of record didn't care about accuracy in its reporting -- it was more concerned with sensationalism.

The McQueary incident, regardless of all the other facts in the case, was the whole “Penn State sex scandal” in the eyes of the public.  

And the P-N was not about to let the public know they got a major fact of the story wrong.

From November 2011 up until the trial, the public perception never changed because corrections were never made.  

The scenario remained: McQueary had seen a rape on PSU’s campus and that PSU had covered it up.   

The media likely expected that the Sandusky trial would prove the first half of that scenario.

Then it didn’t.

When the verdicts were returned, the jury did not believe Mike McQueary had witnessed a rape.  The charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI) in the Victim 2 incident resulted in a not guilty verdict.  It was one of only three not guilty verdicts in the case, while 45 counts went the other way.

The incident – and more specifically, the allegation that inflamed the public against PSU resulted in a not guilty verdict barely garnered any “copy” in the first two days of the P-N’s post-trial reporting. 

Of the nine stories (list below banner at bottom) the P-N ran covering the trial verdicts in the two days following the trial, only one sentence in one story specifically addressed that not guilty verdict.  Sara Ganim’s column, titled, “Jerry Sandusky verdict: Guilty verdict met with rousing applause on courthouse lawn” contained this passage:

“His wife, Dottie, showed emotion only when the first not “guilty count” was read. It was for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in the case of Victim 2 -- the assault assistant coach Mike McQueary says he witnessed in a Penn State shower in 2001.”

A story on the jury's deliberations ran on June 24, 2012 and cited the jury foreman Joshua Harper, who explained why the jury acquitted.   It was the only other story go further than to just list the acquittal. 

Former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary testified about seeing Sandusky with a boy in the Penn State football building showers in 2001.

McQueary said he never actually saw penetration by Sandusky, meaning the rape charge would not stand. But after reviewing testimony, Harper said the close contact McQueary did see was enough to carry the day for indecent contact and three other counts.

Others in the media followed the P-N’s lead and simply repeated that Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts --  with no mention of the most important charge in the case resulting in an acquittal.   As a result, many in the media and the public continue to believe the false story that McQueary witnessed and reported a rape to PSU officials.  

For an incident that caused a media firestorm when it was an allegation, it caused a virtual media blackout as an acquittal.   

---

[1] http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/CurleySchultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf, page 72

[2] http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/CurleySchultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf, page 72 “I never used the term anal or rape in this from day one.”  Page 72, “Would you have ever used the term sodomy with Coach Paterno?” “No, never.”

Later this week: Chapter 7: The Corbett Cover-up

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Complete breakdown of charges | PennLive ...

 Jun 22, 2012 ... Sandusky faced 52 original counts of abuse, four of which were dismissed during trial. Here's a breakdown of all the charges with verdictsfrom ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Victim 1's mom says 'I cried, I'm very happy ...

 Jun 22, 2012 ... With only 20 minutes to get to court, Victim 1 and his mom were forced to hear about Sandusky's guilt on 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse the ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_victim.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Guilty verdict met with rousing applause on ...

 Jun 22, 2012 ... Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 counts of child sexual abuse. Jurors, who were polled on their decision, showed no emotion, except for ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_guilty.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Sandusky found guilty of 45 of 48 abuse ...

 Jun 22, 2012 ... BELLEFONTE -- A Centre County jury has found former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky guilty of 45 counts of child sexual ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_sandusk.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: More on the 10 victims | PennLive.com

 Jun 23, 2012 ... Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse on Friday.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_sanduskys.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Penn State wants to settle with victims ...

 Jun 22, 2012 ... To that end, the University plans to invite victims of Mr.Sandusky's ... No verdict can undo the pain and suffering caused by Mr.Sandusky, but ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/penn_state_issues_statement_on.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Investigations continue of Penn State ...

 Jun 23, 2012 ... Charges are pending against two Penn State officials, and agencies are conducting reviews of the university. Sandusky was found guilty of ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_sandusky-.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Gov. Tom Corbett commends the victims ...

Jun 23, 2012 ... Corbett thanked the jury, the agents and prosecutors in the state attorney general's office and state police for their work.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_gov_tom_c.html

Jerry Sandusky verdict: Penn State says, 'We accept responsibility ...

 Jun 23, 2012 ... After Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of child sex abuse, Penn State University issued a statement voicing respect for the men ...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_penn_stat.html

Morgan: Was 2001 incident really uncovered by an anonymous e-mail tip?

The relationships between The Second Mile and then-AG Tom Corbett raise serious doubts about Chris Houser's e-mail being the "big break" that uncovered the 2001 incident.

By
Eileen Morgan

The most recent investigation of Jerry Sandusky’s alleged child abuse began in November 2008 which led to his arrest 3 years later in November 2011 and eventually ended with a conviction in June 2012.

Former AG Tom Corbett

Many have questioned why it took then-Attorney General Tom Corbett so long to make an arrest and take Sandusky off the streets.  It has been speculated that Corbett was dragging his feet and delaying the arrest for political reasons and because many affluent people connected to Sandusky’s non-profit foundation, the Second Mile, were financially supporting Corbett’s gubernatorial campaign in 2010. Corbett did not want the bad publicity that Sandusky’s arrest would bring to the Second Mile and possibly taint his run for governor.

After two years of going nowhere, Corbett’s team allegedly received the break they needed that blew this case wide open and resulted in Sandusky’s arrest in 2011.

The Big Break
We have been told that this ‘big break’ in the 2 year old probe just happened to come on November 3, 2010, one day after Corbett won the gubernatorial election.  

An anonymous e-mailer apparently claimed he learned about the Mike McQueary 2001 shower incident in an online chatroom and passed this information on to District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller.  Discovering this 2001 incident led the investigators to McQueary and eventually to Sandusky’s arrest.

As we recently learned, the anonymous tipster was a man named Chris Houser.  But was this Houser's email really the ‘big break’ Corbett and the OAG needed to make the case?  

Or, had the OAG known about the 2001 incident since early in the investigation? 

The Second Mile (TSM) Knew About Sandusky Investigation in 2008
When you review the timeline of information learned in this investigation, it is more likely that the 2001 incident was already known and the OAG simply sat on this information. 

Dr. Jack Raykovitz.
Second Mile Executive Director

According to this  PennLive, August 2012 article, ¹

"On Nov. 25, 2008, Jerry Sandusky told Second Mile Director Jack Raykovitz that he had been accused of something inappropriate by a Clinton County boy.  

Raykovitz, a well-known and respected child psychologist in central Pennsylvania, immediately removed Sandusky from all events involving children, and strongly urged him to stay away from children outside of charity functions, too.’"

A November 15, 2011, PennLive article² stated: 

"Second Mile executive Katherine Genovese (wife of Jack Raykovitz) told a person in authority that the charity already had concerns about Sandusky and certain boys.  That conversation is said to have occurred in late 2008 around the same time that a Clinton County boy came forward with detailed allegations of sexual abuse. He became Victim One in the grand jury investigation."

And finally, this Huffington Post article³ claims that Gerald Rosamilia, the Director of Clinton County's child welfare agency (CYS) where the 2008 investigation began, said Raykovitz's wife told him in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting "too close" to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz's wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by "too close" or give a timeframe.  Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. "There have always been steps in place to protect kids," he said.’

McQueary's Gambling Issue Threatened His Future, Was Covered Up by PSU

Don Van Natta, Jr.'s latest article, The Whistleblower's Last Stand, missed the bigger stories on McQueary's gambling 

By

Ray Blehar

As someone who does a lot of writing, it's very easy to get tunnel vision when putting a story together.  I may start a story with a particular focus, but as I'm writing and the story unfolds a new focus emerges.  

Don Van Natta Jr. worked 3 to 4 months on a story about Mike McQueary that was to shed light on his character and, perhaps cause the public to question the veracity of his testimony.  Van Natta's tunnel vision on that part of the story caused him to miss what is the bigger story of the evidence he uncovered -- Mike McQueary's gambling, who knew about it, and its possible impact.

The story of McQueary's gambling was not news to me.  I had learned about it early in my investigation and, in fact, tweeted about it in June 2013, noting that it could have been used as leverage by the OAG.  

Under the NCAA rules, McQueary could have been ruled as an ineligible player for gambling and, with that ruling, would come the potential for the NCAA to vacate PSU wins in games in which he participated.  Similarly, coaches are also forbidden from gambling on sports, thus if it was revealed Mike gambled as a PSU assistant, it could have ended his coaching career.

Leverage?  You bet.

Did the OAG know of McQueary's gambling?  

I don't have definitive, smoking gun evidence of that fact.  

But if they did know, would that not be information that should have been provided to defense counsel as discovery?  And would that information have been used by the defense counsel in an attempt to impeach McQueary's credibility as a witness in the Sandusky case?  

McQueary With More Inconsistent Testimony at Preliminary Hearing

Mike McQueary's testimony has proven to be consistently inconsistent in the Sandusky case.

By
Ray Blehar

The two things in life that are certain are death and taxes.
-- Benjamin Franklin

And now we can add a third thing to that list -- Mike McQueary's testimony will be inconsistent.

Eileen Morgan has already covered McQueary's inconsistencies about what he saw and how he reacted to February 2001 the shower incident.  And the accounts between the November 4, 2011 grand jury presentment, the December 16, 2011 preliminary perjury hearing and at the June 2012 Sandusky trial all differ in varying degrees.

Now that the preliminary hearing has concluded and the transcripts made available for review, the list of inconsistent things have now expanded to who he talked to about the incident, his dissatisfaction with Sandusky's presence in the football building,  and never before mentioned discussions with Joe Paterno.  Note that the media only reported the latter because it contains the key word -- Paterno.

But, what I found even more remarkable is what Mike remembers and doesn't remember.

"Rocket Scientist"

At the first preliminary hearing in December 2011, Mike McQueary could not remember the exact words he used to describe the act with his father, but at the latest hearing he recalls saying "you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on."  This is quite a change from the "extremely sexual and over the lines" terminology he used at the 12/2011 hearing.   Where did these new words come from?

Answer:  John McQueary.

While John McQueary also used the terms "extremely sexual" in his 12/2011 preliminary hearing testimony, John introduced the "rocket scientist" term at the Sandusky trial on 6/12/2012 (page 10).  His exact words, in typical John McQueary, confusing fashion, were:

"He said it didn't take a rocket scientist or something like that.  He might not have said rocket scientist to figure out what was going on."

Remember, this is the same John McQueary who testified that he had never been to the Dauphin County courthouse -- where he testified at the 12/2011 preliminary hearing.

When pressed about what he said to Dr. Dranov, he could not remember the exact words.  So, apparently "rocket scientist" was a code word shared only by Mike and his father (unlike the term "horsing around" which John said was archaic and Mike wouldn't have known about and that it was never used in the McQueary home).

Interestingly enough,  the "rocket scientist" word was never used in Mike's discussions with Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, or Gary Schultz.

More interesting is the fact that McQueary could not remember much at all about what he said to his father and Dr. Dranov on Friday night, but is absolutely sure what he told Joe Paterno the next morning and he's absolutely sure what he told Curley and Schultz at least 10 days after he talked to Paterno.  Those certain words were:

To Curley and Schultz:
12/16/2011: "extremely sexual and over the lines" (p. 32)
7/29/2013:  "a sexual situation, molestation incident" (p. 18)

To Paterno:
12/16/2011: "extremely sexual in nature" (p. 24)
7/29/2013:   "very bad sexual act, molestation act with a minor" (p. 9)

As Jim Clemente postulated, it is impossible for anyone to remember the exact words they used in a discussion ten or twelve years ago.  And it's absolutely incredible that the state continues to pursue perjury charges on statements that cannot be corroborated by another witness.

Which brings up the next point - corroboration.

Where were the corroborating witnesses?

As one should have expected, the media declared the prosecution the round one winner for meeting the exceeding low burden of having enough evidence to go to trial.  However, no one in the media has given a  thought to the point that the Commonwealth brought forth no one to corroborate McQueary's story.

Why?

The only corroborating witness is John McQueary.  Not exactly the most reliable witness (he needed considerable help from Judge Cleland to struggle through testimony at the Sandusky trial).

We know from earlier court proceedings that Dr. Dranov does not corroborate Mike's testimony and he (Dranov) - at one time - would have been the only other witness that could have corroborated Mike's story.   Mike testified at the 12/2011 preliminary hearing that the ONLY persons he told about the incident were his father, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

But now the list has expanded...

At the Sandusky trial, Mike testified that he told his family members and his girlfriend, who defense attorney Caroline Roberto named as Ms. Long.  Apparently, Mike believes he may have called her during his trip from the Lasch Building to his father's home.

Mike also admitted at the preliminary hearing that he told former equipment manager, and now football operations director, Kirk Diehl about the incident.

And there are at least three other people - outside those now named - who received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident and have yet to be called as witnesses in the case.

What are the chances that these people will come forward and testify that they were told (by McQueary) Sandusky was molesting children -- and that they too remained silent?

I'd say those chances are quite slim.

Other revelations

The media jumped all over McQueary's testimony about his discussions with Paterno as if it were manna from heaven.

I found it particularly interesting that a USAToday column cited Wes Oliver, a professor from Duquesne University who had been following the case, who stated he could not gauge the truthfulness of McQueary's testimony because the grand jury transcripts are not available.  Apparently, this "close follower" missed the December 2011 preliminary hearing.

Another "close follower" of the case, Christoper Mallios, a former prosecutor, said McQueary's testimony provided the burden of proof to take the case to trial.

The statements both men were referring to was McQueary's assertion that Paterno met with him over the years and said Old Main screwed up and that Paterno would say - through the years - that Sandusky was a sick guy.

Of course, McQueary's latest revelations are absolutely nothing but hearsay, but the media bought them because it fits the current false narrative about the scandal.  However, a check of the 12/2011 preliminary perjury hearings and Mike's lawsuit against PSU pretty much slams the door on the honesty (or dishonesty) of these claims.

On page 104 of the 12/2011 preliminary hearing, McQueary is asked, "The questions you say you raised with people about why Jerry was still around there, did you raise that question before or after you were contacted by agents of the Attorney General's Office?

McQueary's answer: "Almost certainly after."

The Whistleblower lawsuit filed by McQueary against PSU makes no mention of the alleged conversation between McQueary and Paterno on November 9, 2011, in which McQueary alleged that Paterno stated the "Old Main screwed up" and he'd be scapegoated.  One would think that information would have been mentioned in the lawsuit.  Pages 6 through 8 recount the events from the release of the grand jury presentment to McQueary's dismissal from his coaching duties.  The discussion with Paterno was not mentioned.

What Did Joe Paterno Say?

Those who follow this close closely know that Joe Paterno stated in his final interview that he told Tim Curley about the incident and left if for Curley to resolve.  Paterno never mentioned following up with Mike McQueary or checking back with him.

Moreover, in his interview with Agents Sassano and Feathers in October of 2010, just a month before the grand jury presentment, Paterno never mentions any follow-up discussions with Curley or McQueary.  Partial transcript follows (my emphasis added):

SASSANO: And do you know what happened after that with regards to Mr. McQueary and/or Mr. Curley?

J. PATERNO: Nope.

SASSANO: Did Mr. Curley get back to you at some point in time after that to advise you what actions were taken…

J. PATERNO: No, no, I didn’t, I had other things to do, we had… As I said, Jerry was not working for me.

SASSANO: Right.

Conclusion:  The existing documentary evidence in this case demonstrates that McQueary's latest revelations are unsupported and, are likely, unsupportable.  No witnesses, save his father, will back his stories.