Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Special Agent Who Investigated Spanier Blows Up Case

FIS Special Agent John Snedden
By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

What if everything you thought you knew about the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal wasn't true?

What if that infamous locker room incident that Mike McQueary supposedly witnessed 16 years ago -- featuring a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with an underage boy -- had nothing to do with sex? And what if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?

And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?

There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked  Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, lazy and gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.

Yesterday, on veteran TV reporter John Ziegler's podcast, John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's  top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."

When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers'  decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier]  leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance.  The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.

At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he  "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.

"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.

Curley and Schultz told Spanier that the person who had given the report "was not sure what he saw because it was around the corner and that what he has reported was described as "horse play" or "horsing around." In his report, Snedden said that Spanier "assumed the terminology of horse play or horsing around came from Joe Paterno."

"They all agreed that Curley would talk to Jerry Sandusky, tell him not to bring kids into the locker room facilities," Snedden wrote. "And Curley was to tell the Second Mile management that it was not good for any of the Second Mile kids to come to the athletic locker room facilities, and that they should suspend that practice."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, never was told "who the person was who made the report. But "nothing was described as a sexual or criminal in any way," Snedden wrote.

The initial conversation between Spanier, Curley and Schultz about the Sandusky shower incident lasted 10 minutes, Snedden wrote. A few days later, Curley told Spanier "in person that the discussion had taken place and that everything went well."

"The issue never came up again with Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky, or anyone," Snedden wrote. "It did not appear very significant to anyone at the time."

Gary Schultz corroborated Spanier's account. Schultz told Snedden that back in February 2001, Tim Curley told him "something to the effect that Jerry Sandusky had been in the shower with a kid horsing around and wrestling. And Mike McQueary or a graduate assistant walked in and observed it. And McQueary or the graduate assistant was concerned."

Schultz believed the source of Curley's information was Joe Paterno, and that the conduct involved was horseplay.

"McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place," Snedden wrote after interviewing Schultz. "McQueary did not say anything indicative of an incident of a serious sexual nature."

While Snedden was investigating Spanier, Louie Freeh was writing his overpriced $8.3 million report where he came to the opposite conclusion that Snedden did, that there was a coverup at Penn State. Only Louie Freeh didn't talk to Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier relatively briefly, at the end of his investigation, when he had presumably already come to his conclusions.

Ironically, one of the things Spanier told Freeh was that Snedden was also investigating what happened at Penn State. But that didn't seem to effect the conclusions of the Louie Freeh report, Snedden said. He wondered why.

He also wondered why his report had no effect on the attorney general's office, which had already indicted Curley and Schultz, and was planning to indict Spanier.

"I certainly think that if the powers that be . . .  knew what was in his report,  Snedden said, "They would certainly have to take a hard look at what they were doing."

Freeh and the AG, Snedden said, should have wanted to know "who was interviewed [by Sneddedn] and what did they say. I mean this is kind of pertinent to what we're doing," Snedden said of the investigations conducted by Freeh and the AG.

"If your goal in any investigation is to determine the facts of the case period, the circumstance should have been hey, we'll be happy to obtain any and all facts," Snedden said.

Snedden said he understood, however, why Freeh was uninterested in his report.

"It doesn't fit the narrative that he's [Louie Freeh] going for," Snedden said.

Freeh was on a tight deadline, Ziegler reminded Snedden. Freeh had to get his report out at a highly-anticipated press conference. And the Freeh report had to come out before the start of the football season. So the NCAA could drop the hammer on Penn State.

"He [Freeh] doesn't have time to read a hundred page report," Snedden said. He agreed with Ziegler that the whole disclosure of the Freeh report was "orchestrated" to come out right before the football season started.

It may have been good timing for the news media and the NCAA, Snedden said about the release of the Louie Freeh report. But it didn't make much sense from an investigator's point of view.

"I just don't understand why," Snedden told Ziegler, "why would you ignore more evidence. Either side that it lands on, why would you ignore it?"

Good question.

Snedden was aghast about the cost of the Louie Freeh report. His six-month federal investigation, Snedden said, "probably cost the federal government and the taxpayers $50,000 at the most. And he [Freeh] spent $8.3 million," Snedden said. "Unbelievable."

In a statement released March 24th, Freeh hailed the conviction of Spanier as having confirmed and verified "all the findings and facts" of the Freeh report. On Ziegler's podcast, however, Snedden was dismissive of Freeh's statement.

"It's like a  preemptive strike to divert people's attention from the actual conviction for a misdemeanor," Snedden said about Freeh. Along with the fact that he jury found "no cover up no conspiracy," Snedden said.

"In a rational world Louie Freeh is completely discredited," Ziegler said. "The Freeh report is a joke." On the podcast, Ziegler ripped the "mainstream media morons" who said that the jury verdict vindicated Freeh.

"Which is horrendous," Snedden added.

Ziegler asked Snedden if he had any doubt that an innocent man was convicted last week.

"That's what I believe, one hundred percent," Snedden said about the "insane jury verdict."

About the Penn State scandal, Snedden said, "I've got to say it needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be examined by a competent law enforcement authority." And that's a law enforcement authority that "doesn't have any political connections with anybody on the boards of trustees when this thing hit the fan."

As for Snedden, he left the Penn State campus thinking, "Where is the crime?"

"This case has been all about emotion," Ziegler said. "It was never about facts."

"Exactly," Snedden said.

As someone who has spent the past five years investigating the "Billy Doe" case, I can testify that when the subject is sex abuse, and the media is involved, the next stop is the Twilight Zone. Where hysteria reigns, and logic and common sense go out the window.

Earlier in the podcast, Ziegler talked about the "dog and pony show" put on by the prosecution at the Spanier trial. It's a good example of what happens once you've entered the Twilight Zone.

At the Spanier trial, the 28-year-old known as Victim No. 5 was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. When the jury came out, they were surprised to see Victim No. 5 already seated on the witness stand.

As extra sheriff's deputies patrolled the courtroom, the judge announced to the jury that the next witness would be referred to as "John Doe."

I was in the courtroom that day, and I thought the hoopla over Victim No. 5's appearance was bizarre and prejudicial to the case. In several sex abuse trials that I have covered in Philadelphia, the victim's real name was always used in court, starting from the moment when he or she was sworn in in the courtroom as a witness.

The judges and the prosecutors could always count on the media to censor itself, by not printing the real names of alleged victims out of some misguided social justice policy that borders on lunacy. At the exact same time they're hanging the defendants out to dry.

Talk about rigging a contest by what's supposed to be an impartial media.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecutor proceeded to place a box of Kleenex next to the witness stand. John Doe seemed composed until the prosecutor asked if he had ever been sexually abused. Right on cue, the witness started whimpering.

"Yes," he said.

By whom, the prosecutor asked.

By Jerry Sandusky, John Doe said, continuing to whimper.

The actual details of the alleged sex abuse were never explained. The jury could have left the courtroom believing that Victim No. 5 had been sexually assaulted or raped.

But the sexual abuse Victim No. 5 was allegedly subjected to was that Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

For that alleged abuse, Victim No. 5 collected $8 million.

I kid you not.

There was also much confusion over the date of the abuse.

First, John Doe said that the abuse took place when he was 10 years old, back in 1998. Then, the victim changed his story to say he was abused the first time he met Sandusky, back when he was 12 or 13 years old, in 2000 or 2001, but definitely before 9/11, because he could never forget 9/11. Next, the victim said that he was abused after 9/11, when he would have been 14.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution used "John Doe" or Victim No. 5 for one main purpose: to prove to the jury that he had been abused after the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident of February, 2001. To show the jury that more victims were abused after Spanier, Curley and Schultz had decided to initiate their alleged coverup following the February 2001 shower incident.

But there was only one problem. To prove John Doe had a relationship with Sandusky, the prosecution introduced as an exhibit a photo taken of the victim with Sandusky.

Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.

But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.


  1. Excellent article. One of the best I've read on this saga.

    1. Sure looks like an issue of "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!" They're into this too deeply to ever let the truth come to the fore....

    2. I agree and it is good to see someone in addition to John Zeigler's putting evidence into print. What has been perpetrated in Central PA by alleged victims collecting millions and a main stream media rush to judgement is outrageous. Want to learn more? Read Framingpaterno.com.

    3. Penn State gave away $93 million with no vetting of any kind. Amazing!

    4. To Ralph Cipriano

      You wrote: "Who did Mike McQueary blow the whistle to, the cops? Child protective agencies? The media?
      Here's the difference. It's called proof.

      We don't even know if Victim 5 was really molested as he claims. Was he ever deposed? Did a forensic psychiatrist examine him? From what I am gathering, none of the so-called victims at Penn State were vetted before the university passed out $93 million.

      So nobody can say for sure at this point whether anybody was really molested. They are just allegations that plaintiff's lawyers were running with, so that everybody could score a payday.

      Yes, no one new for sure as you say. "just allegations." And where's the proof?

      Who did Mike McQueary blow the whistle to, the cops? Child protective agencies? The media?
      Here's the difference. It's called proof.

      We don't even know if Victim 5 was really molested as he claims. Was he ever deposed? Did a forensic psychiatrist examine him? From what I am gathering, none of the so-called victims at Penn State were vetted before the university passed out $93 million.

      So nobody can say for sure at this point whether anybody was really molested. They are just allegations that plaintiff's lawyers were running with, so that everybody could score a payday.

      Yes, nobody new for sure! But here is were you are myopically completely and absolutely wrong about your criticisms of this whole process. And the following is for those who don't get the true bottom line of the Penn State affair and the individuals who could have easily prevented the alleged child abuse and the alleged pitiful follow through!

      Joe Paterno’s action in Shower 2001 was absolutely ethically and legally the wrong behavior. Why was his reaction so wrong? It's like this:

      Call it “fondling,” “touching,” “caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed private gymnasium at a major university on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt, a legalized suspicion as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. A 911 call is mandated here legally and ethically -- immediately without hesitation. Period! You always let the policing experts take over and investigate the legality or illegality of a scene of alleged rape! Period!

      Paterno and McQueary’s transgression was instantaneously covering up er…..making invisible, obscure, and insignificant a little boy suspected to be in immediate danger by replacing his image, instantaneously, with the image of Jerry Sandusky.

      Had that adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, JoePa’s legacy today would be untouched!

      Why the over up? Because McQueary, his father, Dr. Dranov, and Paterno all had a many years acquaintance with Jerry Sandusky!

      For Shame!

    5. To Ralph

      I*'m waiting for your reply to my post!

    6. Mike, I'm glad you've got this all figured out. Congratulations. Some of us who didn't follow this as closely as you did are still wondering what the hell happened.

      Special Agent Snedden disagrees with you about Paterno. And says, after he talked with Spanier, Curley and Schultz, that there was no coverup.

      Let me repeat that. Ralph isn't saying that. Snedden is. And he's probably done more investigations that the two of us. So isn't that worth reporting?

      So your argument is with Snedden and the federal government, not with me. But from the comments on this blog, people would rather attack me and impugn my motives, rather than consider an opposite viewpoint stated by a credible source responsible for protecting the national security of the United States of America.

    7. To Ralph

      In no way is it my intention, like the others, to attack and and impugn your motives! But it is my intention to point out the fallacy in your conclusions re the original protagonists of Shower 2001.

      You: "Let me repeat that. Ralph isn't saying that, Snedden is. And he's probably done more investigations that the two of us. So isn't that worth reporting?"

      Yes but, I can't get a hold of Snedden in order to dialog with him. Thus I'm requesting a dialog with you because you seem to be in agreement with his conclusions re Shower 2001.


    8. Wow, this is tough sledding with you Penn State sex scandal loyalists.

      How do you know I'm in agreement with Snedden? Did I say that? I'm just presenting what he said. Once again, I wasn't there back in 2001 in the showers at Penn State with Jerry and his friend.

      I haven't talked to any of the protagonists; I never talked to Curley, Schultz or Spanier. So you are wrong in saying I'm in agreement with Snedden. Right now, I have no idea who's right and who's wrong.

    9. But I know a screwed-up operation when I see one, and that's what we have at Penn State.

    10. To Ralph

      Very good! I wasn't there either. But I have worked with literally thousands of kids over the years and have encounter a vast array of lurid circumstances. Here's where both Zeigler and Snedden fall disturbingly short.

      My whole concern, my whole emphasis was directed towards a 24 hour period back in 2001. And during that period four professional men let their many years acquaintance with Jerry Sandusky disastrously cloud their judgment, as well as, their instincts.

      A kid was allegedly raped, as witnessed by a well known coaching assistant highly valued by JoePa. But McQueary, along with his father and the incompetent Dr. Dranov, totally and completely forgot all about the alleged fate of the boy. He was never to be talked about by those four during that critical 24 period. And with a pedofile, the sexual abuse of a child is ongoing 24/7 until a policing authority steps in between adult and child.

      Ralph, the cover up was covering up the fact that boy even existed or even needed immediate help! All concern was directed towards Sandusky -- never not the alleged victim. Hypothetically, If that adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, you and I would not be dialogging each other. Hypothetically, if that kid had been one of JoePa's grandsons no cover up would have transpired. But ralph, that kid was someone's grandchild and he needed help immediately without hesitation. Why, because what we're looking at is a real time, ongoing crime that needed to be reported, not to any child services or an athletic director, but to a policing authority (immediately without hesitation). Yes Ralph, one quick, purposeful 911 call would have brought a proper investigation of Sandusky, but more importantly, would have brought identification of the kid.

      Theses four professional men panicked! And a child who was allegedly raped was never found or even appealed to by anyone. For shame.

    11. "The kid was allegedly raped," you say. Sadly, that's not what multiple sources, including Snedden, say was what Mike McQueary allegedly reported to Paterno, and what Paterno reported to Schultz and Curley, and what they reported to Spanier.

      So right way we have a problem with your narrative. You have assumed a set of facts that are seriously compromised at this point. But since you assume you know exactly how it all went down during that crucial 24-hour period back in 2001, you think you've got it all figured out. Even though you weren't there, and are only relying on the standard story line as reported by a suspect and hysterical media that has done everything it could to earn the distrust of most Americans.

      Congratulations. Not many people can figure something out from such a distance absent any first-hand information. It's the mindset of the Salem witch trials, which the sex abuse scandals of Pennsylvania often remind me of.

      In the Philadelphia sex abuse cases, one alleged victim was allowed to tell a jury his paranormal experiences, about a dream where a priest on trial for sex abuse was raping the victim's 5-year-old nephew, and he couldn't do anything about it.

      That's why he came forward years later to accuse the priest who allegedly abused him, the alleged victim was allowed to tell a jury. Relating paranormal experiences from the witness stand as though they actually happened was a tactic protested during the Salem witch trials. But it's Ok for today's enlightened courts in Pennsylvania.

      Continue on, Mike, secure in the knowledge that you alone know the real story of what happened back in the Penn State showers sixteen years ago. And don't let anything I write disturb you in your quest to make the world safe for the children.

    12. To Ralph

      Fact: What McQueary reported to Paterno, Joepa admitted at the Presentment, that during those 24 hours with McQueary, he understood something of a sexual nature transpired.

      Fact: McQueary's father, under testimony at the Preliminary Hearing, admitted he believed that night his son had witnessed a rape.

      Fact: Something happened that night that required one thing: To have a policing authority to investigate the charges.

      Ralph, I'm talking about a 24 hour period here. I'm not talking about what was discovered over the Zeigler years after those facts. I'm talking about facts regarding a 24 hour period that suggested, nay demanded, having the authorities make an investigation -- immediately without hesitation. Yes, those facts required a simple, impartial, non-biased reaction -- a reaction of making a simple 911 call! A reaction Ralph, you or I would have instinctively made. Why? Because we would have thought kid and nothing else!

      Ralph, your reaction to my reaction here?

    13. To Ralph

      You use subterfuge to prove your stance. What happened in another unrelated trial is not relevant here! The facts I reported mto you were revealed in the Presentment and in the 2011 Preliminary hearing.

      But forget the facts and forget what ever bias you possess or see in me. The professionals blew it big time. The call for a policing authority, immediately without hesitation, was the only legal, ethical, and righteous choice. And if that was your kid allegedly being raped, you would have expected the same action as I have outlined.

      No ralph, the real cover up was the total forgetting of the kid and the total concentration upon Sandusky, the alleged perpetrator! Did you read Doug Moore's post on April 2. He wasn't there either in Shower 2001, but he clearly understands the tragedy of not going to the aid of the kid in some manner. The kid needed help, allegedly. Ralph, you and i didn't need to be there to reach this humane reaction! GeeeeZ!

    14. Mike, try and calm down. I'm not using subterfuge to prove my stance. And the Spanier trial is not unrelated. We are still talking about the same underlying set of facts.

      You are relying on the grand jury report and the preliminary hearing as gospel. But prosecutors can twist facts. In the Billy Doe case, the 2011 grand jury report had more than 20 factual mistakes in it. They included blatant rewrites of grand jury witness testimony.

      Snedden was probing the same set of underlying facts; what McQueary heard and saw, what he told Paterno he heard and saw, and what Paterno told Schultz and Curley, and what they told Spanier.

      And Snedden, operating in 2012, and talking to many of the principals, reached the opposite conclusion. And frankly, he had no political axe to grind. That can't be said about the AG, and Louie Freeh.

      You are clinging to one version of the facts, as stated in a grand jury report. In Philadelphia, we have learned the hard way that alleged victims and prosecutors don't always tell the truth.

      Don't know if that happened in the Penn State case. We certainly need more light shed on this subject. But you aren't bringing anything new to the ballgame. You are just clinging to what you've been told.

      I'm telling you, from what I can see, there are huge problems with what you've been told, and how this played out. It appears that all systems failed here at Penn State, whether Jerry was innocent or guilty.

      Sad that you can't see that.

    15. To nRalph

      You know, it's so sad. Not one time did Snedden, during his whole investigation, show any interest in the alleged victim in Shower 2001. not one time did he indicate that someone needed to look up that kid. He shared the exact failure of observation with everyone else who was present that 24 hour period back in 2001.

      All I've ever stressed about was the failure of professional men to come to the aid of a potential child abuse victim. Ralph, all you ever stressed about that there was no cover up.

      Let me give you an additional fact from JoePa's very own lips.....

      JoePa knew all about Sandusky the pedophile from at least 2001 to the day he died. How? Why? Here's how and here’s why:

      Lenny Moore, a Penn State football icon, a man socially respected for his integrity, and a man who was close to JoePa, absolutely confirms JoePa selling out on the ethical and on the legal in Shower 2001.

      In a one on one, first person conversation with Paterno in 2011, Moore revealed:

      "He (Pateno) said: 'Lenny, when I found out about what was going on in the shower, it blew me away. Then when I found out all of what I knew, I went to (Penn State president Graham) Spanier, who's my head; I went to the athletic director (Tim Curley); I told them everything I knew.
      And I left it alone. For more than two years after I told them' - this is his exact words - 'they didn't do a damned thing.'"

      "And I left it alone..."

      Paterno consciously never found out the name of the abused child, never made sure it didn't happen again. His was just a shrug of the shoulders helplessness that there was nothing he could do about Sandusky. And the monster rode free for the next eight years!


  2. Even more bizarre is that one of the Spanier jurors just gave an interview saying the jury concluded "there wasn’t evidence that the goal was to put children at risk."

    If the juror was truthful then the conviction for child endangerment was wrong because the PA child endangerment law requires that a person "knowingly endangers the welfare of the child."

  3. Ditto to the Archdiocese . Judge Bright only reduced the number of past abuse cases from 12 to one and said she would review the admissibility of three cases before the trail starts in May. Pride is what is driving the prosecutions in both the Sandusky and Monsignor Lynn cases, both which could have been easily disposed by prosecutors were they so willing and it is fear driving the vetting process in which volunteers have to jump through so many hoops before being allowed to be with children. Even 99% of the volunteers have no criminal background and that is not deemed good enough.

  4. Anyone who I believes that Spanier and the rest are innocent because nothing happened are living in an alternate universe. The assumption that nothing sexual happened flies in the face of MM's and Paterno's testimony under oath at the Grand Jury. Only PSU apologists believe that this article exonerates Spanier. Had attorney Baldwin been allowed to testify, the real truth would have come out.

    1. MM himself neutralized the infamous rape charge. That's why Sandusky was acquitted of the only rape charge on the list. He said the OAG report embellished his original testimony. The transcript shows they did.

      Neither Dr. Dranov (on the night of the episode) nor Curley were able to get MM to testify to any specific sexual behavior in the episode. Nothing. Without that explicit behavior, there is no solid case.

      Baldwin's and Paterno's relevance pale beside McQueary's. He should have been on the stand filling in these blanks in 2012, and 2017. And one need have no loyalty at all about PSU to wonder why Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are now convicted while McQueary,, Dranov and the notified Second Mile got a free pass--especially McQueary, on whom the entire accusation is based.

    2. And yet the original trial hinged on the McQueary story. No victim ever testified. A person, Alan Myers, presented himself as the shower victim to Joe Amendola with a written statement supporting Jerry Sandusky. He received over $3 million from PSU (for what?). MM's story changed over time. The real crime hear is the undermining of a legend and a top rated institution and it's administration by some money hungry opportunists and their lawyer Andrew Shubin. Most of them knew each other and they lied. No witnesses.

    3. ANOTHER blithering idiot who doesn't get it. No wonder we can't get to the truth in this case. "I believe." And the stupidity goes on and on from there. Sigh!

    4. Mike 4949, Anonymous and all the other "Sandusky is a proven boogeyman" BS artists have their heads crammed so far up their asses, it's absurd. Snedden is a DECORATED, top-flight federal investigator. NONE of his investigations have been officially refuted or denied. So, Mike 4949 and all the other "heads crammed 50 miles up their asses" clowns here are nothing but unqualified, brainless BS artists. Shame on you Ralph, for even bothering to waste your time listening to or debating these braindead pud-whackers. You can't argue with stupid. And Mike 4949 and anonymous (need I say more about that clueless moniker?) make Forrest Gump look like Einstein.

  5. I don't think Special Agent Snedden is a PSU apologist. His credibility is certainly higher than the AG's or Louie Freeh's. Snedden is looking out for the US government. What is incentive here to lie?

    1. This is junior league journalism. Had you done even 5 minutes of research you would know that Spanier isn't entitled to a "top secret" clearance from the federal government. Even if that whack-job investigator was doing a background check it would NOT TAKE SIX MONTHS!!!! Plus, he would not be able to get the info that the true seasoned criminal investigators are able to get. This article is a joke and by writing it you are a joke.

    2. Sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. From what I am gathering, it's the "true seasoned criminal investigators" who failed here.

    3. Absolutely...Thanks for calling this slug out. Five minutes of research? It might take five days to go through all the info on Framingpaterno.com.

  6. Thank you, Mr. Cipriano. You are a breath of fresh air in the field of journalism. I hope you will consider writing a book to set the record straight. This wreaks of INJUSTICE. . . for Penn State, Spanier, Paterno's reputation, Curley, Schultz, and quite possibly, Jerry Sandusky.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.


  8. Who did Mike McQueary blow the whistle to, the cops? Child protective agencies? The media?
    Here's the difference. It's called proof.

    We don't even know if Victim 5 was really molested as he claims. Was he ever deposed? Did a forensic psychiatrist examine him? From what I am gathering, none of the so-called victims at Penn State were vetted before the university passed out $93 million.

    So nobody can say for sure at this point whether anybody was really molested. They are just allegations that plaintiff's lawyers were running with, so that everybody could score a payday.

    As for my libel case, the newspaper wouldn't have issued an apology or paid what they did if they thought they could win in court. The bottom line in that ancient story is that everything I wrote was provably true at the time. And what my editor said about me was provably false.

    Which is why they apologized, and why they paid. And shortly after all that happened, the editor was fired and the Washington Post cited his screw up in my case as the reason.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. I have no idea whether Jerry Sandusky is guilty or innocent. I haven't investigated any of that and I imagine the trail is pretty cold by now.

      As for victims being too ashamed or embarrassed to come forward, sorry but I'd have a hard time buying that. Not after the media has been shamelessly shilling for six years for more clients on behalf of plaintiff's lawyers. Please don't waste my time with that argument. Not when somebody who allegedly got soaped up by Jerry in the shower collected $8 million.

      The way Penn State was handing out money, a shower date with Jerry was a better ticket than the lottery. Whether it was imaginary or not. Whether the "victim" gives out five different dates for his trip to the shower.

      Hey Bill, if you saw Jerry Sandusky raping somebody, and nobody did anything about it, would you go to the police? Or would you sit there for ten years and do nothing?

      BTW, check out the McMartin pre-school child molestation case that wasn't in California, and then there's the Billy Doe case.

      Hoaxes happen when prosecutors feed reporters, and reporters abandon their watchdog role to become cheerleaders for the prosecution. Then, a rush to judgment is possible, and all kinds of travesties can happen. I have just seen that happen in Philadelphia with Billy Doe.

      This case has a smell to it. I have never heard of a pedophile who doesn't collect reams of pornography, have you? But I have no proof of anything right now except a troubling report from Special Agent Snedden, the obvious problems with the Freeh report, and the gold rush that Penn State irresponsibly engaged in.

      The cult of victimology loose in the land is not good for figuring out whether anything really happened or not. And right now the victim's lobby is one big sacred cow that everyone's afraid to mess with. The potential for abuse is sky high. Especially with the media pouring gas on the fire every chance they get.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Sorry, Bill, can't play by your rules. You certainly are throwing one assumption at me after another attempting to impugn my motives for reporting what Snedden and his report had to say. That's called news. But you're into motives.

      I haven't mocked the Freeh report, I've reported that others are mocking it. It certainly seems overpriced at $8.3 million. The fact that he didn't interview anybody that mattered is also troubling. But apparently it doesn't bother you.

      Sorry, but you're the one who sounds angry with your charges of victim blaming. And sorry, but I'm not going to leap to any conclusions just because you want me to.

      I've never met Jerry Sandusky, I didn't cover his trial. I've never talked to any of the alleged victims. How would I know whether he's guilty or innocent?

      But I don't have to know the answer to the big question to figure out that what happened at Penn State is a mess.

    5. Sandusky is to guilty as O.J. is to innocent. Anyone with half a brain or an ounce of goodness can see that. Sadly, there are very few left in the state of Pennsylvania with either of those traits.

      If you disagree with that assessment, please try to provide a legitimate explanation as to how there are 32+ accusers paid $93+ million, with no real evidence of any abuse to this day.

      The obvious conclusion is the entire case was a complete fraud/sham/racket of enormous proportions. It can't get much clearer - unfortunately almost everyone in PA is too moronic too see it...

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Take a deep breath, Bill. I don't accept your premise. You may have come to your own conclusions on Penn State. Good for you. I haven't. That's a common thing among reporters.

      I have my doubts, but I need plenty more facts to figure this one out. And I may not ever get there. You've already decided that somebody is a victim here and somebody is a perpetrator. I'm not so sure.

      Just because there is an insane amount of coverage, it doesn't mean they got it right. Actually, it was an insane amount of coverage all echoing the same story line.

      Incidentally, that was exactly what happened in the Billy Doe case. An insane amount of publicity that went national and international. And it was all based on the same premise: evil perpetrators and innocent victims.

      And that insane amount of coverage was all wrong because it was all based on the same premise. Now, the detective who led the DA's own investigation into Billy Doe has come forward to testify about prosecutorial misconduct in the case. He says that Billy Doe is a liar and that innocent men were sent to jail based on a faulty story line. And all of that insane publicity was dead wrong.

      Does that register with you? Four men sent to jail based on the words of a fraud, and one died there? A priest who took a vow of poverty and chastity and spent his last hours handcuffed to a hospital bed, and denied life-saving surgery?

      Now I'm not saying that the same thing happened at Penn State. I really don't know. I have talked to partisans on both sides who think Jerry is innocent and that Jerry is the shrewdest of pedophiles.

      But unlike most of the coverage in this case, I'm not going to jump to any hasty conclusions. I find it amusing though that you're so easily perturbed about what Snedden and Ziegler were saying. If you didn't already have it wrapped in a neat package, you wouldn't be so agitated.

      And sorry, what I'm doing here is classic journalism. If you don't get that, just keep reading the Inquirer and you won't be so upset.

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. Let's try this again, Bill. I didn't write an entire article based on the premise of people's opinions about Jerry and his alleged victims. I wrote an entire article about a federal investigation done by a decorated special agent who came to the conclusions that no sex crime had been committed at Penn State, and no coverup.

      Those aren't opinions Special Agent Snedden is trafficking in. Those are the conclusions of his investigation, and people ought to know about them.

      Even if they run counter to the prevailing story line in the Penn State scandal, and they so upset people like yourself who think they already know what happened because that's what they've been told by an insane amount of publicity.

    10. Ralph, I applaud your patience with Mr. Pecika who clearly has already made up his mind and appears unwilling to acknowledge any dissenting ideas or opinions to be in the public conversation without imputing their motives - or relying on derogatory remarks like "wimping out", "intellectual lightweights," and "old football grandpa made you feel good" to support his statements. Thank you for the thought provoking article and your willingness to keep an open mind on the topic. Sincerely, Martin (apparently one of your many intellectual lightweight readers of the 4th grade reading level).

    11. People like Bill CANNOT separate their emotionally mismanaged disgust over a heinous crime like pedophilia long enough to calmly and rationally weigh the evidence and the facts found in evidence. And the facts ARE these:

      McQueary is a TOTALLY unreliable witness whose testimony has changed so many times it's absurd and not credible.

      He should have contacted police IMMEDIATELY when he believed he witnessed a crime. He FAILED to act responsibly and appropriately.

      Allan Myers, the alleged victim in the shower incident allegedly witnessed by McQueary is a totally unreliable witness having recanted his statements from a legally and VOLUNTARILY obtained affidavit he gave to Sandusky's atty. stating that he WAS NOT molested in that incident or at any other time by Sandusky. His story ONLY changed when millions of dollars of settlement money were offered to him.

      Joe Paterno heard ONLY a hearsay report, well after the fact, by McQueary. He DID NOT witness a crime himself. HE DID NOT cover up or fail to act. He reported what he had HEARD from McQueary to his superiors at Penn State. COMPLETELY in compliance with Penn State policy on these matters. He then allowed an investigation to be undertaken by his superiors and DID NOT in any way interfere or intervene in that investigation.

      These are ALL FACTS found in EVIDENCE in the case and are NOT in dispute. Regardless of what you, or I, or anybody THINKS or BELIEVES is irrelevant to the discussion.

      End of story.

  9. Alan Myers presented himself to Joe Amendola and said nothing sexual happened in the shower (the prosecution never called him to testify)...Mike McQueary told his father and Dr. Dranov that he did NOT see anything sexual. PSU paid Myers $3 million and MM $12 million. WTF?

    1. He didn't JUST "present himself." He VOLUNTARILY walked into Amendola's office and wrote and signed a LEGALLY OBTAINED affidavit stating that HE WAS NOT molested or sexually assaulted by Sandusky either that night or at any other time. The PA AG's office LIED about knowing his whereabouts during Sandusky's trial, keeping him from testifying and having to admit UNDER OATH his voluntarily giving that affidavit to Amendola, which would have exonerated Sandusky on the charges related to Allan Myers. It is abundantly clear that prosecutorial misconduct and willful violation of the law are absolutely part of Sandusky's original trial.

    2. Bill Pecika "this comment has been removed by the author." A blatant admission of no credibility by an emotional fool.

  10. I wish PSU would have paid my kids tuition instead of throwing it at this

    1. The PSU BoT has been at fault from day one from their totally incompetent and grossly negligent mismanagement of the entire Sandusky mess. They stupidly squandered over $120 million dollars of Penn State's money due to their mishandling of the entire affair. In higher education governance, they are now the poster children for total failure at crisis mgmt. and a public relation debacle.

  11. Regardless of the outcome of the JS fiasco. The fact that JS was investigated by the Commonwealth several times and never changed. McQ is a total idiot who can't keep a story straight yet cleans up with a disgusting settlement.. and so many other tragic consequences that smeared so many innocent people! In spite of all that lunacy driven by sick, lazy people with too much power justified by an irresponsible jerk-off press..in spite of all that has endured over too many years. NEVER FORGET: ON THE PENN STATE CAMPUS AND EVERY CAMPUS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.. IN CENTRE COUNTY..ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA.. ALL OF AMERICA..AROUND THE WORLD LIVE SCUMBAGS KNOWN AS PEDOFILES! SADLY THEY ARE EVERYWHERE! IS JS ONE OF THEM? KNOW YOUR LAW, "INNOCENT UNTIL..." WHAT WAS "PROVEN".. WHAT WAS HYSTERIA? THE VERY IMPORTANT LESSON IS WE MUST EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN TO IMMEDIATELY SPEAK UP! NOBODY DESERVES TO HAVE THEIR LIFE DESTROYED.. AND NO SLIME HAS THE RIGHT TO HARM CHILDREN! HUMANKIND MUST GRASP THESE RAW REALITIES! COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR CJILDREN! GOOD LUCK TO US ALL! PEACE.

    1. To Doug


      I couldn't have phrased your words any better. Bravo! nevertheless, when a child is so intimidated as to NOT speak up, we, you and I, have to take over. And given what we know about what allegedly happened during that 24 hour period in Shower 2001(or what we didn't know), a simple 911 call was mandated, was needed, was critical -- immediately without hesitation.

    2. Dimwit, Allen Myers the alleged Lasch Bldg. victim VOLUNTARILY gave Sandusky atty. Amendola a signed, legal affidavit stating UNEQUIVOCALLY that he was NOT molested by Sandusky on that occasion or any other. He only recanted when the incompetent, corrupt PS BoT threw settlement money at him and THEN he recanted. And at Sandusky's new trial hearing, he said 32 times he couldn't remember key details about his molestation under oath. So, if the victim says it NEVER happened, just what is Paterno guilty of? NOTHING! Besides listening to a hearsay ever-changing BS story by McQueary after McQueary cowardly failed to report a crime he allegedly witnessed the night before. FACT! You are so beyond clueless in this case it's laughable. Go watch NCIS and leave your ridiculous arm-chair detective work as your incompetent hobby. When it comes to actual legal facts and evidence, you are a ridiculous, uninformed amateur.

    3. And yet you ridiculously continue to name Joe Paterno as responsible incorrectly, when he was guilty of NOTHING. YOU haven't learned a thing. Did you demand that Second Mile was investigated? Why not? EVERY SINGLE VICTIM was groomed by Sandusky through his contact with those kids through Second Mile. Why have you NOT held McQueary accountable, WHO SHOULD HAVE AND EASILY COULD HAVE PICKED UP A PHONE AND cALLED THE UPPD TO COME TO THE LASCH BUILDING TO INVESTIGATE IN A MATTER OF MINUTES?

      You ridiculously, stupidly, muddy the water with your inaccurate, false narrative driven nonsense AWAY from the truth. We need CLARITY and reasonable, fact driven thinking. Not "Joe Knew" stupidity and knee jerk emotionalism. People like you have kept this situation from being properly investigated and handled since day one. YOU are the problem!

  12. Bill Pecika, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you read above the 4th grade level but much of your education was wasted! Did you ever learn that the burden of proof rested with the accuser (Prosecution)? All that you seem to rely on is supposition! You must feel comforted knowing that you are not alone! Over the years the only way I have been able to try and reach people with your reading proficiency is to ask you to imagine that you are accused of something that you absolutely did not do. Oh, but many gang up and say that you did. Obviously THAT MAKES IT SO! RIGHT? Lucky for you, Bill, there are many that would ask for facts, evidence! Crazy isn't it? So, while it is easy, comforting and efficient to ride the ignorant wave others will demand facts for YOU and even JS! Even many with less than 4th grade reading levels get it! One last shock for you, Bill, JS's son's claims are mere allegations! Or maybe you KNOW something that many of us don't? Today people often ask, "Why do people continue to bring this up?" Answer: Simple.. YOU ALWAYS FIGHT FOR TRUTH! Ask those who have been saved by the INNOCENCE PROJECT! EVEN AN "OLD GRAMPA" WHO COACHED A FOOTBALL TEAM AND POSITIVELY IMPACTED THOUSANDS OF LIVES! Who is no longer here to defend himself.. YOU must be so proud! PLEASE DO MORE THAN READ..THINK!!! PEACE.

  13. I don't know whether or not Sandusky molested any of the accusers, but there isn't a lot of evidence that he did other than accuser testimony that may have been motivated by financial incentives. However, I do know that his trial was patenty unfair. His new PCRA judge, Judge John Foradora (trial judge Cleland recused himself), seemed to be reasonably objective at the first of 3 evidentiary hearings on March 24. Judge Foradora said that he expects to rule on whether or not he will award Sandusky a new trial before the end of 2017. I like Sandusky's chances for a new trial as his new attornies (Al Lindsay and Andrew Salemme) have made compelling filings and established a solid record in the evidentiary hearings that Sandusky's trial counsel were ineffective and that Sandusky's constitutional rights were violated. I think there is a very good chance that Judge Foradora will rule for a new trial or alternatively that Sandusky will win a new trial on appeal to Superior Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


  14. When Dorothy Rabinowitz exposed the wrongful conviction of Margaret Kelly Michaels she ran into the taboo which silenced anybody who suspected that something was wrong with the case. In her interview with Charles Lamb in Booknotes she said: RABINOWITZ: " -- the first that told me what was wrong was -- the Kelly Michaels trial was my first encounter with this in the `80s. The atmosphere was very like the ayatollah`s camp when I raised to the television news editor -- I said, You know, we should do a story on this. There`s something wrong with this case. And here was a wonderful piece by a journalist in the "Village Voice," Debbie Nathan, who also raised questions. The look on the face of the editor was such that I knew you`re not even allowed to raise this. He said, Don`t ever mention this to me again. This is the most hated person in New Jersey. Everywhere in the newsroom I went, I said, You know, there`s something wrong with this story. How dare you? It`s the How dare you? I knew there was something sacrosanct about questioning these charges. This should raise questions." In her book No Greater Tyrannies she details the epidemic of prosecutions against daycare workers and others based on a combination of political ambition and a myth that there were satanic abuse rings operating out of nursery schools. Because the Wall Street Journal allowed her to write about this important subject she was able to help Michaels and by the way, set a new precedent legally. So it seems the climate is just as bad today as it was thirty years ago so far as questioning a conviction of child sex abuse. All it takes is a pointing finger and the media will do the rest. Forget Innocent until proven Guilty. Forget common sense. Forget impeaching the accuser for lack of memory or inconsistency or the fact that they didn't have a clue they had been abused until it was suggested to them. Accuser #1 didn't know he was abused until he was 15, according to what he said in the book Silent No More...and Mike Gillum made the same statement. He didn't know until Gillum told him.

  15. Kenneth Feinberg's office signed off on all victim settlements, and he is not the sort of guy who gets the wool pulled over his eyes when administering mass tort settlements like 9/11 and the Deepwater Horizon. The assembled team of professionals who vetted these claims is about as much guarantee of veracity as I can imagine.

  16. Would love to believe that. But if what you say is true, why did Penn State's insurance carrier sue the university, claiming they'd overpaid these claims?

    Why weren't any of the alleged victims questioned by lawyers or forensic psychiatrists representing Penn State?

    Without any vetting process in place, it looks like Penn State embarked on a $93 million giveaway.

  17. Anyone with any sense knows this case smells bad. Four men of impeccable credentials, reputations and integrity all act completely out of character.....not to mention all the highly educated mandated reporters who for some reason couldn't figure out how to report. All to cover for this monstrous pedophile who who had been investigated several times by a variety of authorities and never charged with anything. Yea right, .....OJ is innocent, the lunar landings were a hoax, everyone incarcerated is guilty.....Wake up.... Saying something about something is not proof..... By the way, when are you going to stop beating your spouse, child, dog,....... what do you mean you didn't do it ? Victim mentality. RIP innocent until proven guilty..

  18. I have to laugh at phonies like Mike4949 who hide behind pseudonyms while people like Ralph, who is right that Paterno did NOTHING wrong. McQueary is and ALWAYS has been the guilty party for NOT calling police IMMEDIATELY IF he witnessed a crime. NOT running home to whine to Daddy and Dranov or to make a heresay report to Paterno the next day. What BS. Mike4949 is a typical "get it wrong no matter what facts are presented" moron. Snedden says the whole thing is a red herring. A TRAINED, EXPERIENCED FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR. Mike 4949 and the other uninformed, beliefs-over-facts bozos here have NO credibility compared to Snedden. The Freeh Report is so much BS and the TRUE travesty of justice here is that Second Mile, with whom MANY people on the PS BoT and other power players in this saga ALL of whom had major relationships with the Sandusky charity. From which he groomed ALL of his victims.

  19. Why was the Freeh report so expensive? Perhaps Freeh was selling something of great personal value -- his soul.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.