Sunday, April 30, 2017

Penn State Confidential: Mike McQueary Caught With His Pants Down

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

When the state Attorney General's investigators first came to see Mike McQueary in 2010, McQueary claimed he instantly knew that they were there to talk to him about Jerry Sandusky.

Even though nine years had gone by since McQueary had allegedly witnessed a naked Sandusky cavorting in the showers with an underage boy.

But a few reporters familiar with the case have long believed that McQueary was lying. And that when the investigators from the state Attorney General's office showed up, McQueary had an entirely different reaction -- he actually was in a panic because he thought he was in big trouble for a couple of bad habits.

Why? McQueary, a former Penn State quarterback and assistant coach, supposedly was betting on Penn State football games. McQueary also supposedly had used a Penn State phone to text photos of his privates to women who weren't his wife.

Today, one of those reporters who believes McQueary was lying just blew up McQueary, a female source, and quite possibly himself. John Ziegler did it by posting text messages and graphic photos on his website to show that seven years after that visit from the AG, McQueary allegedly is still texting photos of his privates. And this time, to keep the scandal all in the PSU soap opera family, the gal McQueary allegedly was texting was the former fiancé of Joe Amendola, Sandusky's former defense lawyer.

It's a story about porn but the reporter who broke it has a serious purpose behind his tawdry tale.

The whole Penn State grand jury report was built around Mike McQueary's alleged witnessing of Jerry Sandusky's alleged anal rape of a boy in the showers.

Even though the prosecutors subsequently admitted that they never found the alleged victim of that alleged 2001 rape, and that his identity was known "only to God."  McQueary himself also told the AG's office that he never said he had witnessed penetration, and that the grand jury report had "twisted" his words.

So the entire Penn State cases rises and falls on the credibility of Mike McQueary, the state's star whistleblower.

If McQueary was lying from minute one about knowing what the AG's investigators were there to talk to him about, Ziegler wrote, "It also meant that Mike was particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by the authorities."

Ziegler is the crusading reporter who is convinced that Jerry Sandusky was innocent of the 45 charges that he was found guilty of. In what may be construed as the actions of a suicide bomber, Ziegler in his blog post revealed that a couple of his original sources for the dirt on Mike McQueary were none other than former Penn State president Graham Spanier, and Jay Paterno, son of the late football coach Joe Paterno.

Ziegler also credits Jay Paterno with the funniest line in the story. It happened when Jay quipped after allegedly seeing a crotch shot from McQueary, "Well, it's either Mike or Ronald McDonald," alluding to McQueary's flaming red hair.

But Ziegler isn't the only reporter who was onto the McQueary sexting story. On his website, Ziegler posted a tape from 2014 where ESPN reporter Don Van Natta "bragged he had the entire penis picture story covered, all the way down to the phone records of Mike's panicked calls to friends convinced that his career would be over once Joe Paterno found out about the pictures," Ziegler wrote.

The penis pictures, however, never made it into the ESPN story. But the posted audio clearly shows Van Natta was convinced he had that part of the story nailed down.

Deadspin also speculated in 2014 that way back in 1995 during a blowout victory over Rutgers, McQueary, then a Penn State QB, came in off the bench to throw a last-minute Hail Mary just to beat the point spread. A video from the game shows a clearly surprised and perturbed Paterno on the sidelines, along with a pissed off Rutgers coach.

Piling on an opponent was not what Joe Paterno was known for.

John Snedden, a former special agent for the federal government who did a background check on Graham Spanier and found no coverup at Penn State, said he found the sexting story disturbing.

"It certainly doesn't seem to be indicative of somebody who would be a credible witness in a sex-related case," Snedden said about the state attorney general's star witness. "It certainly casts doubt on any credibility he [McQueary] might have if you're running around doing that."

In his blog post, Ziegler explains why he outed the woman in the story that McQueary was allegedly sexting. First, Ziegler says, the woman was the instigator in contacting both Ziegler and McQueary. She also promised to come on Ziegler's podcast and tell all, the reporter writes.

"One, when she backed out of our agreement, I was no longer bound by my part of it," Ziegler wrote. "Second, I just don't give a damn anymore."

19 comments:

  1. Great analysis Ralph of Ziegler's dogged efforts to expose all the villains in the PSU scandal. Many will shutter at the graphic pictures and text in the original work of Ziegler, but it further reveals McQueary to be completely unreliable when it comes to character and with regard to any testimony he gives or has given in any courtroom or before the grand jury. He is a man with many weaknesses and flaws who is controlled by the thing he keeps photographing and sexting to women he doesn't even know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who knew about MM's gambling, and how did they conspire to keep the blinders on the all-knowing Joe Paterno? Or did Joe know? And what kind of slap-happy sex was MM involved in to learn to associate slapping sounds with sex?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will Mike McQueary's clear lack of credibility EVER be addressed by a judge? Nothing new here about McQueary's​ habit of sexting OR the well-grounded suspicions of his gambling on his own games.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What does this say about Paterno hiring all these perverts? Did he like to watch? Voyerism possibly in Paterno's history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually moron, it shows that if Mike would have been discovered showing pics of his penis through a PSU phone, Joe would have fired his ass. Mike "cooperated" with authorities and told them what they wanted to hear to save his own ass....or in this case...

      Delete
  5. Judge ordered Penn State to pay him an additional 5M to the 7M previously awarded him for a total of 12M altogether. Has he seen any of the 12M supposedly paid him as Penn State can easily appeal this to indefinite cyberspace. Ex wife not too happy about this unless this was the reason she booted him from home and filed for divorce . Tiger Woods forgot to take his pager to the poker site and wife found salacious messages left for him. Maybe MM did the same.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bogus theory. McQueary had known that a grand jury was investigating Sandusky since 2009. Some reporter from FightOnState.com had the story that early. Members of the Penn State Athletic Department were emailing each other in 2010 that they expected the Death Penalty for the football program when Sandusky was indicted. Scott Paterno was discussing the grand jury with a reporter in fall 2010. The first thing McQueary did in late October 2010, after being contacted by police, was call D'Elia -- Joe Paterno's right-hand media guy. All the Zieglers of the world have had in their arsenal all this time was attacking the messenger McQueary. Who is now $12-$13 million richer as a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you provide evidence of that FightonState story? It should be in the web achives if true. Also, if the death penalty fears were true, then why didn't Curley, Schultz, McQueary, and Paterno meet to ensure their stories were straight before they testified at the GJ?

      Delete
  7. whatever he does personally is a separate issue. he SAW Sandusky essentially raping a child and THAT is what is important-- also, he did not come forward to outside authorities regarding it , until YEARS later -- so maybe that is why he was silent. But to doubt that he really saw that in the shower is immoral. He SAW it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If McQueary really did see Sandusky raping a child, then who is that child? The only man to ever claim to be victim 2 insisted no assault occurred that night.

      Delete
    2. I think is immoral to accuse somebody of "essentially raping" somebody else. He either did it, or he didn't. There is no "essentially." Exaggerations have no place in a criminal trial.

      It's also immoral to suggest that MM "SAW" anything. He never once said he saw anybody being raped. And Sandusky was found NOT guilty on this charge.

      Finally, if MM did actually see anything, I find it HIGHLY immoral that for ANY reason he failed to vigorously stop it and report it. I don't mean calling his dad. I mean drag the guy off the kid and call the cops.

      Your morality sucks. You attack the doubters who have the agreement of the jury while giving a pass to a guy who waited years to go to outside authorities, protecting no one but himself all those years.

      Delete
    3. Dr. Dranov (urologist/nephrologist) consistently testified that he asked Mike THREE times if he saw something sexual, and THREE times Mike said NO. Spanier's trial was the 4th time Dranov testified under oath that Mike saw nothing. Dranov is a mandated reporter and could loose his medical practitioner's license for not reporting suspected sexual abuse. Ditto for Mike's father. (which of course opens speculation about possible blackmail by prosecutors).

      Delete
    4. Question - for a mandated reporter, does the mandate cover all times or just time spent in their professional capacity? For example, if Mike's father is a mandated reporter, does that apply when he is in his own horn and hears of something? Or just on the job? I honestly don't know, and the difference in terms of blackmail leverage certainly depends on the scope of the mandate.

      Delete
    5. Not relevant in PA. A statute means what the prosecutors say it means, even though the plain language of the statute doesn't say anything near what the prosecutors say it means. Schrodinger's Law. The meaning of the statute oscillates among several interpretations with the most probable being that giving most advantage to the prosecutor.

      Delete
  8. Ziegler is a conspiratorial crackpot who after releasing the Don Van Natta confidential phone call assured that this story will go nowhere. When thinking of Ziegler think asshat.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice vicious personal attack Mr. Unknown. But what if what both Ziegler and Van Natta were saying was true?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hear that John McQueary paid a pretty penny to cover MM's gambling debts and keep Paterno in the dark. Cynthia Baldwin's daughter was in a heap of trouble for a serious automobile accident until Baldwin "flipped", after which the case mysteriously disappeared. This has Frank Fina's paw marks all over it. His MO was threats, coercion, and back-handed deals. Somehow the king of pornocoPA and suborned perjury has escaped scrutiny, even as his minions in the Filthadelphia Da's office go down. Nice how these criminals cover each other's asses, allowing untold injustices to occur. But beware: the lawnmower commeth, and Fina's ass is grass!.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So just weeks after Mike sat in state prosecutor Laura Ditka's witness chair - telling his "story" - as her star witness against Dr. Spanier mind you, Mike sees fit to send a photo of his very erect penis over a web enabled smartphone to a random female he has yet to ever meet in person, nor even speak with first.

    He called her "baby". He suggested a blow job. He wanted a hook up. After all the publicity and after all the scrutiny he's been under - he aks a random female "WILL U DROP UR MOUTH ON IT".

    Now this exchange lives on forever on the Internet.

    Laura Ditka prosecutes sex crimes. I wonder if these photos land on her desk, would the bile then rise up in her throat?

    Never mind that no one else has ever corroborated Mike's story at trial, that our state never proved its case against Dr. Spanier, that Curley & Schultz plead after having the state stepping on their necks for over 5 years, with an impossibly polluted jury pool across the state.

    What does this latest stunt by McQueary tell us about his character, his ethics, his maturity, his mindset, his decision-making skills? The nation knows who he is, and now we all "know" Mike that much better.

    Many of us cannot ever "unsee" that photo.

    The entire farce of a case, the epic costs and destruction to regular folks in the commonwealth by commonwealth public officials - because of McQueary & his "three slapping sounds".

    I'd love to hear Laura Ditka explain this one. She was cooing to Mike at trial about "skin on skin" contact. They could finish each other's sentences, they were that scripted.

    Seems to me, Mike engaged in more "slapping sounds" & "skin on skin" contact with his penis and a smartphone hoping for a blow job than anything that went on that fateful night in February 2001.


    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.