Pages

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Penn State Confidential: Prosecutor Told McQueary To Clam Up

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

On Nov. 10, 2011, six days after the state Attorney General's office released its official grand jury report on the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was trying to calm Mike McQueary, her distraught star whistle-blower.

McQueary had emailed Eshbach earlier that day to tell her that the grand jury report that told the world that McQueary had witnessed a naked Sandusky in the Penn State showers having anal intercourse with a 10-year-old boy was wrong. In that same email, McQueary complained to the A.G.'s office that they had "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" that he had actually seen or heard in the showers.

Now there's a star witness you can have confidence in.

In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

During the defamation suit McQueary filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."

There's another angle to the prosecutorial misconduct story line -- this email exchange between McQueary and Eshbach that was reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2  in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Blehar then cites four other witnesses in the case who also testified that McQueary never used sexual terms in describing what he had allegedly seen in the shower.

"Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. [John] Dranov, [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State VP Gary] Schutz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw," Blehar wrote.

In his second email to Eshbach, McQueary stated, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out the night before . . ."

In the email, McQueary doesn't say who the he was who was out the night before. In his blog post, Blehar takes the he as a reference to McQueary's father.

"Wait, what?" Blehar writes. "Paterno was in State College on Friday night. If this statement is true, then Mike did NOT meet with his father (and Dr. Dranov) immediately after the incident(because John Sr. was 'out of town.')"

"Another fabrication?" writes Blehar. "And the AG knew it."

In handwritten notes written in 2010, McQueary doesn't mention any meeting with his father and Dr. Dranov. Instead, he writes that he "drove to my parents' house" and "spoke with my father about the incident and received advice."

He also reiterates, "to be clear: from the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe one minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered."

A hazy one-minute memory that McQueary himself admitted he had no idea "whatever it was" he had actually witnessed.

But it was a hazy, one-minute memory that the AG's office wrote an entire grand jury presentment around. How weak is that?

It was flimsy evidence like this that led Special Agent Snedden to conclude that McQueary was not a credible witness back in 2012 when Snedden was investigating whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have his high-level security clearance with the federal government renewed. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no sex crime to cover up.

Because McQueary gave five different accounts over the years of what he supposedly witnessed during that one minute in the Penn State showers.

"I'd love to see McQueary's cell phone records, absent whatever dick pics he was sending out that day," Snedden cracked, referring to the day McQueary witnessed the shower incident, and then called his father to figure out what to do.

"Did he even call his dad?" Snedden wondered.

Snedden renewed his call for an independent investigation of the entire Penn State scandal, and the attorney general's role in manipulating evidence in the case.

"Anybody who cares about justice needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor in this case," Snedden said.

John Ziegler, a journalist who has covered the Penn State scandal since day one, agreed.

"This seems like blatant OAG misconduct and an indication that they were acutely aware their case had major problems," Ziegler wrote in an email. "Eshbach's response is stunning in that it admits errors in grand jury presentment and tells Mike to shut up about it."

Ziegler said the possibility that Mike McQueary never met with his father and Dr. Dranov, his father's boss, in an emergency meeting, if true, was big news.

"This is HUGE for several reasons," Ziegler wrote. The meeting, which supposedly occurred on the night McQueary witnessed the shower incident was the "ONLY piece of evidence that has EVER been consistent with Mike witnessing something horrible/dramatic" in the Penn State showers. And that's why "Dranov was brought in to meet with him [Mike McQueary] late on a Friday night in February," Ziegler said.

The AG's office, Ziegler speculated, "is desperate for evidence that Mike did something dramatic in reaction to" witnessing the shower incident.

And if the he McQueary was referring to in the email to Eshbach wasn't his father but was really Joe Paterno, Ziegler said, then that's another problem with the official Penn State story line. Because according to his family, Joe Paterno was in town that night and presumably available for an emergency meeting with a distraught assistant who had just witnessed a horrible sex crime in the shower.

If he really did see an anal rape ongoing in the shower, however, does the McQueary story, in any of its versions, make any sense?

McQueary didn't rush into the shower and try to save a helpless, 10-year-old boy.

He didn't call the police.

Like Elvis, he just left the building.

"The meeting with Dranov is all they have," Ziegler wrote.

42 comments:

  1. Mike testified that he took quick one or two second glances into the shower -- through a mirror. Again, quick one or two second glances.

    He then testified that he saw "very slow, slow subtle movements." That doesn't comport with a 1 or 2 second glance or the production of slapping sounds. McQueary, apparently realizing that a slow, subtle movement wouldn't create a slapping sound attempted to rehabilitate his statement by offering: "But...not enough to make me think that I didn't hear slapping sounds when I saw them..." and then "That was upon entering the locker room. I want to be clear about that."

    So, upon entering the locker room, he didn't see them -- he heard them. Then he apparently saw them when Sandusky was moving too slow (in a one second glance) to make a slapping sound.

    Well, at least the jury figured out that McQueary didn't see anal sex.

    The question that I have is did Mike see anything other than a boy's head peer around a corner? The floor plan of the locker room, the testimony of Dr. Dranov of a boy looking around a corner and being pulled back by and arm, and Spanier's account of being told the witness (McQueary) didn't see anything because it happened around a corner (among other discrepancies) is rather strong evidence that most of Mike's story is fabricated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My God, what an unholy tangled web of lies these people have created. If any of them believe in God, which they probably don't, they better get down on their knees and ask for forgiveness. Or spend eternity feeling the same pain they have caused the innocent by proclaiming them to be guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The God that prosecutors honor is a well oiled machine, who keeps them safe, working and living a comfortable lifestyle and allows for any injustice on their part to be overlooked.

      Their God protects them from journalist or the public who speak the truth. Their God is all powerful and has many servants and worshippers,those that want to comply are especially rewarded and are able to justify innocents that suffer as a mere formality.

      The status of a demigod among the less fortunate population of underlings is most coveted, one such benefit is the daily rewards of being revered by society.

      Rewards for worshipping an all powerful God who works hand in hand with prosecution are many, no member has anything to fear on this earth , as they have no mortal enemies that are suitable or able to speak against them without the utmost fear of retribution.

      They have no need to worry about spending eternity repenting, their God rewards them here and now with constant praise and accolades for their work in rooting out invented crimes, they live their lives constantly being praised, adored and glorified by the media and the public.

      Who would not want to worship at this altar, the minor diety is the status assigned by our society to the members of this sect, who instill fear and peril into the hearts of fellow Americans.

      No ill thought or action can ever been taken against them and there are many that find justification in their desire for perpetual adoration.

      Delete
  3. I agree with Snedden that investigators should have tried to get McQueary's cell phone records from 2001, if they were still available in 2011. The phone records could have confirmed the time of the call to his parent's home and the call to Paterno. It may have shown other calls, which may have turned up other witnesses. At one point McQueary testified he may have phoned his girlfriend on the way over to his parents' home but there was never any public confirmation of that.

    In fact, they should have gotten his cell phone records from the time police contacted him in 2010 until the Sandusky trial. Maybe they did and found his sexting pics, which would explain why he was eager to say anything the OAG wanted.

    It seems improper for the OAG to be discussing a case over the phone or via email with the star witness. Any communications between OAG and a witness should be done on the record so the defense has access.

    ReplyDelete
  4. McQueary had the opportunity to go before the press at anytime and correct the false media narrative but instead chose to do nothing. Why? Because the Pa. State Police were holding his gambling and his texting selfies of his genitals to campus coeds over his head. In other words he was in effect being extorted into complying with the OAG. This entire prosecution should never have happened. But, hey, this is Pennsylvania and Corbett had to place the blame on someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Anonymous - I think the OAG was corrupt, and McQueary totally failed to correct the record.

    I think a lot of the blame should also go to the press. They failed badly in their reporting of McQueary's changing, contradictory and not credible testimony. They failed in their reporting of the corrupt practices of the OAG, especially by not calling out the lies in the grand jury presentment and perjury by OAG investigators. It is almost as if the press is just doing PR for the OAG rather than serving as the public watchdog on government corruption.

    A perfect example is this story. I've seen no news outlets mention these damning McQueary-Eshbach emails. I'm certain if these had been old emails between Paterno and Spanier concerning Sandusky, it would have been national headlines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are spot on in this summary! The PA state prosecutors as well as state child protective services workers couldn't be more corrupt. The children of this Commonwealth are STILL in danger and not one major media outlet has mentioned that simple fact. This whole case was smoke and mirrors to protect state officials.

      Delete
    2. There were a few recent stories like "Pa. child welfare system is broken; caseworkers overwhelmed, underpaid: report" but nowhere near the coverage of anything with the name Paterno attached to it.

      http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/09/child_welfare_system_cys_child.html

      Pennsylvania Auditor General, Eugene DePasquale, issued a report on the state of PA's failing child-welfare system in Sept. 2017. Last year there were 46 PA children who died and 79 others critically abused or neglected. About half those deaths were in homes known to CYS.

      http://www.paauditor.gov/press-releases/auditor-general-depasquale-says-state-of-the-child-special-report-shows-broken-child-welfare-system-broken-puts-children-at-risk

      Delete
  6. Since mainstream media is not interested in publicizing anything that has to do with prosecutorial misconduct, a database should be created of prosecutors who lie to grand juries to get indictments and use the media to broadcast their egregious lies to the public.

    In Philadelphia the Inky is following through on making sure police officers that commit crimes are not allowed back on the street and are held up to face public scrutiny but they look the other way when it comes to prosecutors.

    Evidence of prosecutorial misconduct is all around us, prosecutors never think they are wrong or that they could have committed a crime, their actions are always justified ,according to them, no matter what lies they need to tell to get a case going.

    Had such outrages been committed by politicians or public figures, it would have been front page news, allowing the prosecution to get away with such behavior is unacceptable.

    Its unfortunate that we are unable to depend on mainstream media to assist in the pursuit of justice,as they are powerless when it comes to righting wrongs of prosecutors and they have shown that they have no interest in attempting to hold them liable.

    The public somehow swallows the prosecutions deceptions believing that is was necessary to ensure their personal safety and the salvation of society. Allowing them leeway where other professions would never have afforded that luxury has been the root of the injustices .

    How much louder do we have to scream before mainstream media believes that prosecutors lie to get indictments, lie at trial and above all lie to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      You have to go one step further in your explanation of MSM's supposed apathy and helplessness. Their apathy and supposed loss of power screams complicity. They are not victims of lying prosecutors, they are partners bought off with money and threats.

      Until we the people acknowledge this, there will always be the MSM "incompetence" to blame for printing lies. None of us wants to think it's that bad in America right now---that our source of information on a daily basis is a criminal partner with criminal government.

      Until we all stop the denial and truly prepare for the scrap of our lives, we will continue to suffer the almost daily barrage of lies used as a tool of our government's psychological warfare against us.

      Come on, it's there in our faces: highly questionable "mass shootings" occurring about once a month, highly questionable "race riots" all the time in the "news"-----it's propaganda people---lies, staged violence to divide us against each other! And it's all done with our tax dollars!!

      Cut the cord on their lies! Cancel cable subscriptions, MTV garbage, and newspaper subscriptions. It's the only way to take this country back. We can simply keep each other informed while rebuilding a circle of trust for truthful information.

      Delete
    2. Team prosecutions consists of the media to set the stage in condemning a defendant even years in advance leading up to a trial, the jury who is already convinced of the defendant's guilt, the prosecutor, who answers to no one and the judge who is usually a former prosecutor.

      Americans want a scapegoat, someone to blame all their problems on, we want to hate, ridicule,shame and humiliate in order to feel justified. No one wants to sit down and talk, we want the government to indict and imprison the objects of our perceived injustices.

      We are on a slippery slope, it is acceptable and encouraged to seek a division among groups of people, we have been witness to this day in and day out, whether we realize it or not.

      While I do not agree with you that mass shootings are propaganda news, it is evident that Americans are full of rage and hate, we want to find fault with others, it could never be our own fault that our country is in the state it's in, we need to take ownership of our problems.

      Our revolution is playing our now, we have had enough,we are tired of being used by the media to incite divisions in society. The media has proven how powerful it is in swaying public opinion, it should never be used to sway juries.

      We have the most incarcerated population on earth, mainstream has to own part of that situation. Fueling the flames of hatred, planting seeds, journalist do not have the right to defame and disgrace another human being and it is usually done with only the prosecution's facts.

      More needs to be done for those accused of crimes, the prosecution has the public's ear, defendants have no one to relate their sagas about their treatment at the hands of the justice department.

      Data is needed to showcase how often this is happening and the outcome on defendants.If the position of the media is act as an agent of the prosecution they have succeeded, if the want to be just and fair they have a long way to go to make amends.

      As for cutting the media cord, I would suggest fighting back and not allowing journalist to think for us, John G. Public needs to be represented, not the continual barage of ideals or ideas of journalist . We feel helpless without a voice, how do we find common ground with journalist who continually side with the prosecution.

      We can not afford to be subjected to a local rag that sees only one side of an argument, how much more suffering is necessary for them to realize they need to change. No journalist should sit back and think their job is finished unless they have all the details.

      Delete
    3. To Anon-Oct.12, 11:43:

      Although I agree with many of your points, I still feel that you are focusing too much on 'the journalist'.

      The so-called journalist in these troubled times of corruption, is nothing more than an extension of, and partner to the judicial government corruption. The title of "journalist" has sadly become a misnomer for "government agent".

      Although we have always had some journalists that have written exactly what the government tells them to write, there seemed to be more journalists in days gone by that were courageous and therefore interested in presenting the truth to the public.

      You suggest 'fighting back and not allowing journalists to think for us'. I agree with the 'fighting back'. However, to say journalists are doing our thinking for us, is erroneously believing the media is a separate entity from our corrupt government. It would be far more accurate to say, the GOVERNMENT is doing our thinking for us through their agents of propaganda, the "journalists".

      Think again about your statement, 'I disagree with you that mass shootings are propaganda news'. They most definitely are events staged by Mossad, Chabad Lubavitch, and our post-9/11 "intelligence" agencies. I would not even give these pathetically staged events the honor of being called 'news'. They are third-world-like manufactured terror with the designed intention to eventually disarm the American citizenry. Quite simply, our hostile foreign-occupied de facto government does not want an armed population of citizens. You must do your research on this to fully understand why I believe what I've said.

      As we are slowly weeding through our government's propaganda, we pose a tremendous threat to them in the form of resisting their tyranny. The bottom line is, after 9/11, our government has become illegitimate. That's a hard pill to swallow, but it is the truth.

      Delete
    4. Truthsucker is at it again, blaming the Jews for everything.

      So The Mossad and Chabad Lubavitch stage mass shootings to hopefully take your guns away?

      Just stop it already. Or take your nonsense over to Stormfront.

      Delete
    5. Again still not biting on mass shooting being propaganda or staged, that is a dangerous path to take, it reminds me of people that have been denying that the Sandy Hook massacre of innocent children did not take place. Its sacrilegious to the dead. So we can agree to disagree on this matter.

      I do believe that prosecutors "manufacture" crimes in order to "save" the public from some imagined corruption, whereby convincing the public that they again have been our modern day superheros.

      There are those who are citizens of our country and those from abroad that want to see chaos reign in America and have done their utmost to spread untruths to influence opinion and our elections with much success.

      What we do not need is our judicial department engaging in this practice against its own citizens.The public believes that corruption is rampant and thus has led to suspicion and apprehension.

      Crimes no doubt exist, and they need corralling, but when I read most of what the prosecution alleges, I assume its made up crap and crap repackages so the public deems it believable. What ever ills are plaguing society somehow prosecutors find villains to prosecute, even if they are innocent .

      Another theory on journalist is they are making bold statements with only partial facts and they are ignorant of the true facts.

      Disseminating false information, believing it as true and reporting it as truths is causing this rift,some reporters are particular favorites of the prosecution.Having lies repeated cements the tall tales whereby it becomes the truth for the readership.

      Journalists do think for the masses, most people believe exactly what they read from a respected news source, whether they have their facts correct or not. Innocents have an impossible task correcting lies, once they are printed they are never retracted.

      Delete
    6. Cyrus Vance has shown us what prosecutors do daily,like letting the Trump children off the hook when others would have gone to prison for a similar offense. Accepting a campaign donation from the the Donalds attorney which was theorized helped in dropping the investigation. That or they only go after cases they are sure to win.

      Distorting the legal facts of the sexual abuse case so Harvey Weinstein was not prosecuted. Excellent article by Leon Neyfakh a journalist for Slate titled They Had the Goods on Him.

      As well as going after a small family owned bank during the savings and loan scandal, which had nothing to do with mortgage fraud,losing the case and having a documentary to prove the abuse by his office on this bank and the family who owns it. Large banks were deemed to big to fail but this bank was small enough to jail, hence the name of the documentary. It can an be found on PBS Frontline
      ABACUS:SMALL ENOUGH TO JAIL.

      These are the politics prosecutors play, big fish swim away and little fish get prison time.

      Delete
    7. RE to Anon at 4:37 PM: Really? And Graham Spanier, President of Penn State University, is not 'big fish'? And Kathleen Kane as the Attorney General of PA is not 'big fish'? What about Bill Cosby?

      This is all selective, vindictive political prosecution to manipulate public opinion against the good honest leaders in this country. It has nothing to do with big and little fish. If a so-called big fish doesn't suck up to the criminal cabal that is our judicial system and military/industrial complex, then they get falsely accused and thrown in jail. Graham Spanier wouldn't eliminate professor positions for the study of global warming and he became a number one target of Tom Corbett's and his fracking cabal. And of course, any fool can see why the cabal went after Kane. I don't have to explain that. The Cosby circus? Well, I think that's just an artificially created perpetual drama to give corrupt mainstream media big money dirty news stories for years and years. Risa Ferman fed that grand scheme to her organized mafia media pals.

      Delete
    8. No one compares to the deep pockets of moguls, be they Hollywood or real estate developers, prosecutors only go after them if they have an ironclad case . How many more women needed to come out against Bill Cosby before charges were brought against him.

      Politician are easy targets, like shooting fish in a barrel, everything wrong with America is the fault of politicians.The media tells us so every day, federal prosecutors think they are all crooks and so does the general population.

      Prosecutors make work for themselves,for whatever ills America at a particular time prosecutors find a victim to fill the void to satisfy our thirst for revenge.

      Delete
  7. Extortion is legal when the prosecution does it. How do you think they get so many "witnesses" to co-operate ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fear spreads to the public and they want to be protected. That's what prosecutors do by putting people in jail damned of they are innocent.

      Delete
    2. You got it right. Our government is so extremely corrupt right now. They are desperately trying everything they can to conceal their crimes. And as you say, to strike fear into us, the people that can expose them, they keep us unable to rally together and demand justice.

      Graham Spanier, Kathleen Kane, Curley, Schultz, and even posthumously, Joe Paterno, are political prisoners. Their statements of fact contradict the false narratives put forth by Tom Corbett and Louis Freeh. And as these OAG thugs do, they play tag team on the people they are falsely accusing. Tom Corbett, Louis Freeh, and Risa Ferman, just slink away after accusing innocent people of crimes. Then fresh accusers like Josh Shapiro and Laura Ditka come in and continue the beating.

      Delete
  8. JoePa was already on notice he employed a pedophile before McQueary even worked there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BS. Based on what evidence? Not just your BS, anecdotal belief.

      Delete
  9. As usual you are outstanding with this new evidence. As ive said before this case is so frightenly scary with corruption and the very definition of miscarrigae of justice. It truly scares me that this is the judicial system that we should hang our hats on here in Pennsylvania. I Dont ever see you on Facebook anymore and miss your witty banter with idiots who are unable to look at this case even for a moment with the smallest amount of logic. Be well my friend and as always keep up the good work. Things have a way of working themselves out. Btw your post about Mke Mcq. and the texts exchange and d. Pics had me me laughing til i couldn't breath!! Talk about putting someone's sh** on blast! I would of closed the post with "check mate bitch"...LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isnt it amazing that Josh Shapiro has the time to sue President Trump over any little issue - but has done nothing about the prosecutorial misconduct in the Penn State and Msgr Lynn/Fr Engelehardt/Mr Shero cases

    ReplyDelete
  11. He's going to continue to pretend it's not happening. So is his press office.

    They are both pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josh Shapiro suborned perjury from V5 and went along with the hoax fabricated by Klein. It looks like Bocabella was in on the hoax. He certainly violated every aspect of jurisprudence with the theatrics that accompanied his testimony. Too bad Spanier couldn't find an attorney that passed the bar. My cat could have picked apart V5 like a vulture on roadkill.

      Delete
    2. I too don't understand why Spanier's defense asked no questions of V5. He had given 3 or 4 dates of his alleged abuse, one in 1998, when he was age 10. That alone is reasonable doubt as to whether he was endangered by Spanier's response to the 2001 shower incident. The Sandusky jury also didn't find him entirely credible as they acquitted on the most serious charge.

      Too, I don't think the nature of V5's alleged abuse was even brought out at the Spanier trial. He only claimed Sandusky forced him to touch Sandusky's privates, not rape or oral sex, yet those were probably implied by prosecutors and victim 5's theatrics on the stand.

      Delete
  12. I knew when I saw Linda the liar do her tv presentment that night it was all a stage show. I didn't know exactly why I thought she was full of s__t but I do now

    ReplyDelete
  13. Factor in the length of time given for the trial. It was a mad rush. Painfully obvious they didn't want to give time to anyone

    ReplyDelete
  14. So Jerry Sandusky is rotting in jail as this stuff is coming out and there is no way to speed up a retrial? This stinks. Ziegler convinced me of Sandusky's false conviction in the evidence he provides on www.framingpaterno.com. Sadly people are either blind, corrupted, or too lazy to read and view the evidence. Wake up people, this could happen to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely, Sandusky will not be granted a new trial and left in prison spending his days appealing the Judges decision. That will maintain the status quo. Kathleen Kane is trying to get a new trial with a jury dumber than the last jury who convicted her. The three administrators got royally screwed over.

      Delete
    2. Spanier still has a shot at getting his conviction thrown out. I think Curley and Schultz pleading guilty really hurt Spanier's case as well as the retired judge who seemed to make up the law as he went along. Had Spanier's lawyers put on a defense, they might have avoided the single conviction.

      You can see how the judge bent over backward in his denial of Spanier's appeal. He ruled that the statute of limitations (SOL) for misdemeanor child endangerment for the 2001 shower incident did not expire until 2039. I doubt that is what the legislature intended when they raised the SOL for bringing charges of child sexual abuse against the abuser to the 50th birthday of the victim. We'll have to see how the Superior Court and the PA Supreme Court rule.

      Delete
  15. For some reason no "Reply" button to click on for the two comments responding to my comments. They are from Anonymous posted on Oct. 13th at 1:47 and 3:18.

    So, RE to you both: First Anon, so how am I 'blaming Jews' for everything? Are Jews without blame for anything at all? Is that it? Jews are untouchable and without blame because we're supposed to believe they and Israel are perfect and never do underhanded harm to anyone? Right?

    If I or anyone else that isn't Jewish makes a criticism, an observation, and even has a theory or an opinion expressed in an unofficial capacity, we are instantly labeled as "anti-Semitic". It used to be that the term "anti-Semitic" applied to extremists that actually hated all Jews. But now, unfairly, people like you pull out the hatred label and anti-Semite label if we see some things that point to Jewish crime against our country. Why is that?

    Are you saying there is no such thing as Jewish organized crime organizations like Chabad Lubavitch? Are you saying there is no such thing as the Israeli Mossad that about 3/4 of Americans now have heard of because of the mounting evidence of their involvement in the 9/11 false flag against America?

    You are either in denial, delusional, or complicit in trying to lead people away from intelligent discussion of Jewish crime in America.

    And Anon at 3:18, you don't have to 'bite' as you put it on these highly questionable mass shootings that almost tell on themselves with their pathetic inconsistencies. Just a minimum of research shows them all to be staged psychological warfare against the American people. And the "news" media is complicit in presenting it all as truth. We need to stop saying fake news and start screaming criminal government/media propaganda!

    ReplyDelete
  16. The latest wacky conspiracy theory from radio host Chris Plante is that Paterno was lambasted for not stopping Sandusky because he was a Republican but the Democratic Hollywood elites who didn't stop Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse of women are being excused.

    Someone needs to inform Plante that Republican Attorney General of PA, Linda Kelly, Republican governor of PA, Tom Corbett and Republican Louis Freeh were the lambasters-in-chief of Paterno.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/13/chris-plante-harvey-weinstein-scandal-joe-paterno-was-lynched-over-sandusky-abuses

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is there a video tape of Tom Corbett pummeling MM and others on national television (Meet The Press?) I think that there is enough evidence in that interview to put Corbett up to his neck in the hoaxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right about that! But has anyone seen Tom Corbett anywhere around PA lately? I think that he probably underwent plastic surgery, had his hair dyed black, grew a beard, and is now being treated like a king somewhere in Israel!

      Delete
  18. There is a "Meet the Press" transcript online where Corbett criticized Mike McQueary, but rather mildly.

    In some ways he defended McQueary. He deflected when asked if McQueary should still have a job at PSU and said "But they have to keep in mind that this is also somebody who is a witness to this crime and is a very important witness to this crime." PSU might have saved millions had they taken that into account and kept McQueary on the payroll so he couldn't sue them.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45276821/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-november/#.WeQeizBrzIU

    ReplyDelete
  19. Conspiracy theories aside, I think this whole kabosh was an exercise in mutual opportunism. Paterno was simply the name that they used to put legs on this beast. Whether he was Republican or Democrat was of minor importance. Spaniel was probably the target of Corbett’s retribution. McQueary was the useful idiot that was manipulated into creating the set up. The rest were brought in, as needed, to support the scam.

    Sports nuts went after him because he was such a successful coach of a team they despised. Child advocates were protecting their interests and keeping the public from finding out how badly they blew this case. Journalists, well they were journalists. This was a big story and, truth be damned, they were going to make money off if it. Lawyers were building high stakes lawsuits and the legal industry works together to make sure this continues. They shamed everyone else into supporting it or be branded a child abuse enabler. No one cared if the accused were innocent.

    These e-mails pretty much show how corrupt our judiciary is. You can practically feel how Mike McQueary got squeezed by these legal goons. The fact that he was so blatantly manipulated by these jackals is what the public was kept in the dark about. Contrast that with today’s Weinstein scandal where the accused is being tepidly protected by his Hollywood clan. Now no one wants to admit how badly they participated in this whole sham. But it is a sham. And that is all it is. How to get that out to the general public is where we are right now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. All of your stories have turned to complete dog shit. Wine clubs? This garbage molestation trial that’s been beaten into the ground for years already?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sandusky's lawyer filed a motion Oct. 17 to reopen the record because of these new emails. The motion contains a copy of this article. It may be too late because the judge announced he was issuing his opinion about noon on the 18th.

    http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MOTION%20TO%20REOPEN%20THE%20RECORD.pdf

    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.