Friday, June 2, 2017

Prosecutors In Graham Spanier Case Howling For Blood

By Ralph Cipriano

The prosecutors in the Graham Spanier case have lost it.

In a 14-page sentencing memorandum filed May 31, prosecutors in the state Attorney General's office want to punish one of their own cooperating witnesses for memory lapses on the stand. The prosecutors also want to throw former Penn State President Graham Spanier in jail for a lack of remorse.

Why are the prosecutors howling for blood? In their sentencing memorandum, the state attorney general's office blames the actions of bloggers and and the politically incorrect comments of the defenders of the Penn State administrators accused of covering up the sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky.

In the sentencing memorandum, the AG's office states that Sandusky's victims have been "sentenced to a lifetime of tortured memories that all victims of child sexual assault carry with them." And that those victims are "haunted regularly by feelings of pain, fear, self-blame, disgust and shame."

"These feelings have been compounded by the supporters of these defendants who refer to these young men as 'so-called victims' and frauds who are only out for money," write Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ann Ditka and Deputy Attorney General Patrick J. Schulte.

Then, the AG's office started pitching red meat.

"During the dependency of these proceedings, [the victims'] lives have been marred by conspiracy bloggers showing up on their property to harass them, publishing photographs of their automobiles on social media, and revealing their identities," the prosecutors wrote. "The vibrancy and hopefulness of those children before they were molested by Sandusky can never be restored. Physical injuries heal but the emotional scars left behind by sexual abuse last forever."

Are you getting this? The insanity of the Penn State case is so over-the-top that the prosecutors are appealing to the judge to put Spanier in jail [and maybe one of their cooperating witnesses as well] because of the actions of bloggers in the case.

And the politically incorrect words of Spanier's supporters like former Penn State trustee Al Lord, the former CEO of Sallie Mae, who famously declared that he was "running out of sympathy for 35 so-called victims with 7-digit net worth."

In Lord's defense, that's what happens when some 30 so-called victims at Penn State collect $93 million in cash for their alleged pain and suffering. And the university's board of trustees abandon their fiduciary responsibilities by handing out that cash without having any lawyers or psychologists question any of the plaintiffs, to see if they're telling the truth.

Lord subsequently apologized, which is the standard procedure in American society these days for anyone who dares to call into question a sacred cow.

And there are a lot of sacred cows grazing in the pastures of the so-called Penn State sex scandal.

Memo to the attorney general's office: During the Penn State scandal, the mainstream media has abandoned its traditional role as watchdogs, in favor of functioning as cheerleaders and agents actively working behind the scenes on behalf of the prosecution.

That's why we need bloggers on this case. Because the mainstream media can't be trusted.

First of all, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out during the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse case, any media policy that hangs out to dry the alleged defendants in a criminal case, but protects the identity of the alleged victims in that same case, is blatant discrimination. Such a policy immediately telegraphs to the consumer of news that one party is guilty and the other party in that same contest where guilt or innocence has not yet been determined, is as pure as the driven snow.

It's a titled playing field, and in any sane world, the media would be reexamining that policy. Especially in the light of the so-called "Billy Doe" case, where a former Philadelphia altar boy who claimed he was raped by two Catholic priests and a Catholic school teacher has been revealed to be a complete fraud.

In that case, Joe Walsh, a retired detective who led the Philadelphia district attorney's investigation into the altar boy's allegations, came forward last month to file in court a 12-page affidavit that reveals that the former altar boy, Danny Gallagher, admitted to Walsh that he lied about his original allegations of brutal rape.

Walsh also revealed that he repeatedly grilled Gallagher, and caught him in many lies, none of which were ever reported to the defense. And that when Walsh repeatedly told the prosecutor in the case, former Assistant Mariana Sorensen, that Gallagher wasn't credible, she allegedly replied, "You're killing my case."

But what has been the reaction by the mainstream media to the Walsh bombshell in the case that sent four men to jail for imaginary crimes? The Philadelphia Inquirer, which published 59 Billy Doe got raped stories, has willfully ignored it. As has Rolling Stone, which published a long Billy Doe got raped story by noted fiction writer Sabrina Rubin Erderly, and hasn't gotten around to retracting it. Like they did with Erderly's previous work of fiction about an alleged gang rape at a U-Va frat house that never really happened.

But things at Penn State are even crazier than what happened in Philadelphia with Billy Doe the lying altar boy.

In the case of Billy Doe, whose real name is Danny Gallagher, when he came to court to testify, the former altar boy was identified at two criminal trials by his real name. It was the news media, in a misguided act of self-censorship, that didn't publish Gallagher's real name, but insisted on calling him Billy Doe.

In the Spanier case, however, the judge and lawyers in the case all got in on the act, imposing official censorship on the proceedings, even though the witness in question was a grown man.

The only alleged victim to testify at the Spanier case was Michal Kajak, a 28-year-old previously identified in the Jerry Sandusky case as "Victim No. 5."

In the Spanier case, Kajak was sworn in as a witness behind closed doors in the chambers of Judge John Boccabella. Then, when the witness came out to testify, the judge introduced Kajak to the jury as "John Doe," and the lawyers in the case proceed to question him as John Doe.

While this circus was proceeding, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no conspiracy bloggers used their cellphone to take photos or videos of the celebrity witness who was getting preferential treatment.

The whole point of John Doe's tissue-soaked trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that Kajak/John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary made his famous visit there.

While extra deputies patrolled the courtroom, the sobbing witness told the jury that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky after the famous Mike McQueary shower incident. But the jury wasn't told what that alleged sex abuse of Kajak/Victim No. 5/John Doe was.

It wasn't rape; Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

The jury also wasn't told that because of the alleged abuse, Kajak collected in a civil settlement $8 million.

Kajak, AKA Victim No. 5 or John Doe, also gave four different dates for his alleged abuse in the shower with Jerry – in 1998, when he was 10 years old; in 2000 when he was 12; in 2001, before 9/11, when he was 13; and finally in 2001 after 9/11, when he would have been 14. 

But because Kajak was a sacred cow, as certified by the judge in the secrecy and hoopla that accompanied Kajak's trip to the witness stand, the defense lawyers in the case were too intimidated to even ask one question.

Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.

That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.

In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.

"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."

That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.

"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."

As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.

The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.

As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."

"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."

"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.

"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.

As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.

Update: Judge sentences Spanier, Curley and Schultz to jail.


  1. "But what has been the reaction by the media to the Walsh bombshell? The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has published 59 Billy Doe got raped stories has ignored it. As has Rolling Stone, which published a long Billy Doe got raped story by noted fiction writer Sabrina Rubin Erderly, but hasn't gotten around to retracting it."

    I hate the term "fake news" but when we live in a time that big media molds messages and flat out ignores actual stories like they never happened, what is one left to think

    Ralph, thanks again for letting the public know what is happening

    1. How sad! How utterly sad.

      After 6 long and emotion packed years, John Ziegler and all the JoePa apologists still don't get it. The "it" being the real story about the Penn State calamity.

      All of the subsequent years of debate and indecision would have been initially vanquished had a simple 911 call had been made during that 24 hour period after the alleged rape. My, oh my, oh my! And Ziegler and the apologists don't get it for the following legal and humane reason:

      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's and McQueary’s transgression was instantaneously 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! And all immediately replaced any thought of the alleged victim with football and Penn State.

      For Shame!

    2. To All

      My goal (not Ziegler's) is to remind, nay insist, that all of you folks who revere kids, who would stand by, defend, and attack any terrorist attacking any child, will always immediately without hesitation seek aid from a policing authority.

      Regardless of all the questions all concerned people have about what actually transpired in Shower 2001, one answer will always apply in any situation similar to what occurred in that shower room. And that universal answer is this:

      Anyone who suspects something untoward being acted upon a child is both legally and ethically mandated to call a policing authority -- immediately without hesitation!

      This is the tragic lesson we all must learn from Shower 2001.

  2. the memories that torture all the accusers were planted in their minds by therapists who should be prosecuted for malpractice. I pray that the sentencing judge has enough sense to see the charade that the commonwealth staged in order to bring three really good men to disgrace and lets them all go home with nothing more than probation.

  3. I suspect the story Tim Curley told the investigators while negotiating his plea bargain was quite a bit different than what he told the jury while his supporters were present. Hopefully one day the OAG could publish what Curley told them. What did Joe say about dealing with Sandusky in 2001.

    1. Curley's lawyer said that Curley's statement for the plea deal was consistent with his trial testimony, including what he didn't remember.

      If the prosecution had a statement that differed from his trial testimony, they could have brought that up at trial. If he lied so much why didn't the prosecution charge him with perjury or revoke his plea deal? A judge is not supposed to accept a plea deal if the defendant does not tell the truth.

      I think it was all grandstanding by the prosecution.

  4. Defense attorneys instead of the usual blurb to the media, my client is innocent of all charges, should say, I am going to do my best for my client but the jury already thinks my client is guilty because the media has proclaimed the "facts" told by the prosecution as truths. As trusted media outlets have reported the details of this case erroneously, people still believe what is written must be the truth, whether the reporter writing the article knows any facts other than the prosecution's "facts". I may even suggest to my client to plead guilty to a non-exist crime rather than take a chance going to trial with a jury that is sure they are guilty. As the climate in America favors the prosecution at all times due to constant coverage of any defendant as the guilty party.

    Not sure if they would get any more clients but it would be an accurate statement.

    Its very interesting to me that the prosecution would reference bloggers not agreeing with their facts or offering another opinion to the public. As the main stream media has been used to printing whatever was asked of them by the prosecution without question.

    The media has made it increasingly hard for Americans to think for themselves,as we have put too much faith in what is written by crime reporters as truthful statements when all they are reporting is the prosecution's side, which is unacceptable slanted reporting.

    I used to wonder how prosecutors slept at night, now I wonder how the media sleeps knowing they have had a hand in a defendant's wrongful conviction. I fear just as prosecutors think they are always right and should never be questioned, the media feels that the side they have taken is always right and they do not have to make any corrections even when additional information comes to light. People are tired of being lied to by the prosecution and the media.

    1. Amen about being lied to by the media and prosecutors.... NOT only how they sleep at night but also who can they live with themselves. The system is very broken and innocent people are being harmed. If it wasn't for John and myself Jerry would have never had his voice heard at all. Also those that not sleeping at night how about the board member of PSU and all the rest that had thier hand in on this.... all nothing but a witch hunt and it has taught me alot about the system and courts and lawyers you can't trust them... SHAMEFUL these people who have done this will be exposed even more soon and brought down.....

  5. Did Seth Williams or one of his henchmen just get hit with another search warrant this week?

  6. The PA OAG and the PA COURTS are a joke. As Ralph pointed out, the John Doe witness (formerly known as Victim 5) is the ONLY victim in the case to levy an allegation against Sandusky and NOT BE BELIEVED by the jury. Doe/Victim 5 alleged that Sandusky started shoving him around in the sauna in the PSU locker room, then afterwards took him into the showers.

    It was the first time Doe/Victim 5 had ever showered with Sandusky. Unlike every other victim who testified at the trial, Doe/Victim 5 alleged that Sandusky groped him. Victim 4, who was the first to testify at the trial, stated he showered with Sandusky about 15 times before Sandusky started to touch him inappropriately. The jury found Sandusky guilty of all charges related to Victim 4.

    However, the COURTS were just as bad with regard to Doe/Victim 5. At the sentencing, he was allowed to testify to being indecently touched by Sandusky. The trial judge, John Cleland, was in charge of the sentencing hearing. Just how the heck is that allowed to fly?

    The bottom line is the OAG's office and courts are both corrupt to the core.

    PSU officials were selectively prosecuted for not acting on an uncertain report of Sandusky's conduct with a child. DPW and Centre County CYS had far more incriminating information on Sandusky in 1998 and let him slide. The Second Mile, contrary to Jack Raykovitz's testimony, knew about Sandusky's inappropriate conduct with children.

    In 2008, when Clinton County CYS called The Second Mile to report the incident, it did not tell the charity who the complaint was filed against. Katherine Genovese correctly guessed it was Sandusky. The she said, "We've had to tell him to back off kids before."

    Judge Boccabella says a phone call could have stopped this. It didn't stop it in 1998. And it took 3 years to stop it after the phone call in 2008.

    1. you: "DPW and Centre County CYS had far more incriminating information on Sandusky in 1998 and let him slide."

      Nice hyperbole Blehar!

      What incriminating evidence? Upon investigation for an inquiring mother who was only questioning, only nervous about Sandusky showering with her son, the child in question said nothing of a sexual nature happened. There was no evidence that found Sandusky guilty of anything.

    2. Your criticism of using 911 is completely juvenile. A simple legal and morally motivated 911 phone call in 2002 would have prevented the entire Penn state calamity as we know it. And JoePa's legacy would be in a righteous place today.


  7. This is what happens when hoaxes (or multiple hoaxes in this case) are not debunked. To debunk a hoax, you have to attack, not cower down. The defense attorneys behaved as if the OAG had planted seed pods in their houses. This judge was disturbingly biased...I've never seen theatrics like the testimony of V5, which itself was obvious perjury suborned by the OAG. Was any OAG witness every properly cross-examined? My cat would have done a better job than Grahm's attorney.

  8. Those idiots don't get it. They put three innocent men in jail while screwing over two who pled guilty expecting to receive probation . And they used the 1972 version of the law which precludes administrators to convict them while knowing full well they could not use the 2009 version of the law. How simple would it have been had Josh Shapiro said to all "Wait a minute, we can't convict those guys as the 1972 version does not apply to them, only teachers or guardians of the child." That would have been the epitome of good lawyer in akin to writing a good brief much like a good term paper. This declaration would have opened eyes on the brilliance of this newly elected Attorney General. But this is not to be as he has shown himself as not qualified to lead. A complaint to the Bar Disciplinary Committee would be to revoke his license to practice law and be removed from his post.

    1. To James

      You simply don't get it. There was one and only one action that was legally and morally required in Shower 2002. To call 911 immediately without hesitation.

      It's like this. When there is smoke you call the fire department -- immediately without hesitation. And when a child is allegedly being raped (at that moment in real time), there is only one option that should be and must be undertaken. DIALING 911! Immediately without hesitation!

      You don't go to a coach or an athletic administrator who has neither the power to find out who the child is nor the resources to investigate the alleged crime.


    2. Mike949, you simply don't get it. Your inability to see through the mental garbage the media has fed you for the past seven years is rather common, sadly.

      In any criminal investigation you need a credible complainant.

      Mike McQueary is simply not credible. In 2001 or 2002, take your pick, he spent 45 seconds hearing slapping sounds and glimpsing something going on in the shower.

      He didn't go take a look himself to find out exactly what was going on. If there was a sex crime being committed in that shower, he didn't come to the aid of the victim. If there was a crime being committed, he didn't call the cops.

      He was questioned repeatedly by his father the doctor, his father's boss the nephrologist, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Each time, McQueary couldn't say he witnessed a sex crime. That's why his father the doctor and the nephrologist, two mandated reporters, didn't tell him to call the cops.

      That's why Schultz and Curley didn't either.

      In the proceeding sixteen years, Mike McQueary has told several different versions of his 45-second view of whatever happened in the shower. He also lied about reporting it to the cops, and breaking it up.

      That's what we call a non-credible witness. But thanks to the media, and the prosecutors, who know how to hype an anal rape that even McQueary admitted he never witnessed, we have the nonsense known as the official Penn State story line.

      Which gullible types like Mike949 have taken as gospel.

    3. To Ralph Cipriano

      Nice try but your tired old arguments continue to not hold water (nor the truth either)!

      In the Preliminary Hearing McQueary's father stated he believed his son had witnessed a rape! Dr. Dranov stated McQueary was so upset with what he witnessed, he couldn't talk in any coherent manner. In the same Preliminary Hearing, under extended questioning, Curly finally admitted that he understood from McQueary that some kind of sexual activity transpired in that shower. And in the Presentment JoePa admitted that he understood something of a sexual nature did occur that night!

      What McQueary thought he saw, was confused about what he saw, or just lied about what he saw is totally and completely irrelevant! A 911 call was mandated here both legally and ethically. It was the only action that would have arrived at the truth of the whole matter! And 6 years of debate and argument by yourself all Penn State apologists would never have transpired!!!

      Ralpjh, this is you: "In the proceeding sixteen years, Mike McQueary has told several different versions of his 45-second view of whatever happened in the shower. He also lied about reporting it to the cops, and breaking it up."

      Everything you state here could be absolutely true. But what you state here is tragically after the facts. A mandated 911 call would have revealed the truth and six years later we would not be discussing the Penn State calamity!

    4. Ralph - Agreed that McQueary is not credible for many reasons. The fact that McQueary got the year and month wrong shows how poor his memory was. Even worse, he failed to remember that the day before the 2001 shower incident, PSU wide receivers coach, Kenny Jackson, announced he was leaving to coach for the Steelers. That was pivotal in McQueary's career because he got that position in 2004.

      McQueary testified that when he phoned Paterno the morning after the shower incident, the first thing Paterno said was that he didn't have a job for him. It seems obvious that Paterno thought McQueary was calling about the suddenly vacant wide receivers position. Too bad the defense lawyers were not on the ball or they would have asked McQueary why Paterno would have told him he had no job for him and exposed his poor memory.

    5. James - I agree that the child endangerment law in force in 2001 did not apply to administrators as written but the PA Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the Monsignor Lynn case. Lynn was convicted under the child endangerment law passed after his alleged crime. The PA Supreme Court ruled that 1995 EWOC law “clearly encompassed the class of persons added by the 2007 amendment” and “and the amendment merely clarified, rather than changed, the (1995) statute’s scope of liability.” That decision makes no sense to me, the Superior Court and the one Supreme Court justice who dissented.

      Even the post-2001 child endangerment law that the judge used to give jury instructions required that Spanier be Sandusky's employer or supervisor. Sandusky retired from Penn State after the 1999 season. He was never Sandusky's supervisor even when Sandusky worked there. Paterno was his supervisor.

      Perhaps the Spanier appeal on this issue will eventually get to the PA Supreme Court because it has several differences from the Lynn case, and the PA Supremes are almost all different now. If the PA Supremes rule against Spanier, then maybe he will appeal to the US Supreme Court because Spanier was convicted under an unconstitutional ex post facto law. In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the ban on ex post facto laws in a child sexual abuse case in Stogner v. Calif. In that case California retroactively extended the statute of limitations for child sex crimes.

    6. If the state Supreme Court is right, and the original child endangerment law meant to include supervisors, why did the legislature, at the request of Philly DA Lynne Abraham, amend the law in 2007 to include supervisors?

      Makes no sense.

  9. Once again, you're assuming Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape. He says he didn't, and he told that to the prosecutors in an email, saying they "twisted" his words.

    If Dranov and McQueary Sr. believe Mike McQ witnessed a rape, then why didn't they tell him to call the cops? Why didn't they call the cops themselves?

    Sorry, but like that grand jury report, you've built your whole argument on top of a lie. Repeat to yourself slowly, Mike McQueary says he did not witness penetration. Therefore, Mike McQ did not witness an anal rape.

    Therefore, no crime occurred. Therefore, the cops shouldn't have been called.

    1. To Ralph Cipriano

      I never assumed anything about McQueary accept that in that particular evening in question, He felt he witnessed some kind of sexual acting out with a minor. When one is witness to what they feel is an on-going crime upon a minor, there are only two options one is legally and ethically mandated to do: Either intervene or call 911 -- immediately without hesitation.

      Four professionals, who were aware something possibly nefarious was occurring in that shower room, did not the mandated action! They all spent 24 hours deciding to pass the alleged terrorism to folks who had neither the resources to do an investigation and discover whom the kid was; nor the power to stop the crime.

      You: "If Dranov and McQueary Sr. believe Mike McQ witnessed a rape, then why didn't they tell him to call the cops? Why didn't they call the cops themselves?"

      Excellent question easily answered. Because all four (including JoePa and Mike) had a many decades acquaintance with Sandusky. That's why all four hesitate: and why they all forgot completely about the alleged victim. There whole attention was not on the alleged crime, it was on the old football coach. And that was unconscionable! Unconscionable because, whether true or not the position had to be taken a minor was in a catastrophic situation!

      Jerry, be honest here for a new York minute. Had that adult in Shower 2001 been a total stranger, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion today.

    2. Mike4949,

      Not answering for Ralph C. However I'll give you my two cents---your argument is nonsense. The reason 911 emergency wasn't called is because there was no emergency---duh! Mike McQueary didn't call 911 emergency because he saw only a boy and a man in the showers, he didn't see a rape. And Mike has already admitted that. The dirty Tom Corbett OAG took McQueary's incident and lied to the press about a rape---get it? Anyone would call 9/11 if witnessing the rape of a child in progress, even spineless Mike McQueary. There was no rape, their was no assault, period!

      McQueary is not a man, he is a boy because he didn't ask questions to clarify the situation. Instead he played hide and seek and left.
      It's a situation he felt uncomfortable with so he talked about it with his father. The Corbett OAG then abused their power and altered the story to wrongly blame the wrong people for Sandusky's love of boys. No one is going to "protect" Sandusky as you suggest, if they were immediately witnessing him raping a child, and you know that. However, Tom Corbett as a corrupt PA politician having files on Sandusky going back to the early 90s, did protect Sandusky for over 15 years!

    3. So it's all a big conspiracy, Mike? I'm not buying in. The solution is when he was questioned by four people, Mike McQ didn't know what he saw. Which is why nobody called the cops.

      Much simpler than your convoluted conspiracy theory. But glad that you've divined what's unconsciounable here without ever being there. Truly impressive

    4. To Ralph Cipriano

      What conspiracy?

      No, no, and no! You deceive and thus are creating your own one-man conspiracy. Smile.

      Facts Ralph, facts! As revealed and stated in recorded public legal record, the testicular challenged McQueary, convinced his dad that a rape did indeed occur, convinced JoePa that something of a "sexual nature" was bestowed upon the child victim, and convinced Curley that something sexually untoward happened in that shower room.

      It's all in the Preliminary Hearing record! READ IT! No conspiracy, just the incredible incompetence of four professional adults throwing the alleged victim under the proverbial bus. Ralph, if you don't understand the reality of this whole illicit affair, heaven help a child victim you might some day stumble upon being rearranged by a pedophile!


    5. If that's true Mike why didn't McQueary Sr. and the cops? Why didn't Joe Paterno? Oh, that's right, everybody knew the all powerful Jerry Sandusky.

      Mike, you've got it all figured out. And only you can see a raging pedophile hiding behind every corner.

    6. Had that adult been unknown to all four, the "raging pedophile Jerry Sandusky would have been apprehended -- never to "rampage" again!

    7. Mike, I'll give you points for consistency. I have a Batman comic I'd like to lend you. Bet you can memorize the plot and recite it all day.

      Just like you've memorized the comic book version of the Sandusky case.

    8. To Ralph

      Thank you for finally caving in on your multiple defenses of those four individuals. You pooped out on me because you know the arguments you bring, in the final analysis, just don't hold the proverbial water. Despite your claims of innocence for so many individuals who messed up in 2001, the court system has put things into proper perspective. Them guys you so admire are doing time. And yes, karma will get McQueary too.


  10. Mike McQueary was bribed by Corbett's dirty OAG using University money as the promised payout. Basically, Mike McQueary gave the criminal OAG permission to "embellish" what he actually saw for a multi-million dollar "reward". First and foremost, Mike McQueary is a coward for not asking the boy if he was alright or "is this your father"? No call to police is needed if there is no rape. However, being the only witness to something questionable, all Mike had to do was ask two questions of the boy and also a question of Sandusky. I would have said first, "are you all right", then I would have asked Sandusky, "who is this youngster, and what are you doing here with him"? A supreme failure by cowardly Mike McQueary does not equate to Graham Spanier being aware of or responsible for McQueary's failure.

    Mike McQueary is also an exhibitionist, a compulsive gambler, a porn addict, and a known compulsive liar that was easily bribed to say what Shapiro and Ditka wanted him to say. In other words, he is mentally ill and not a credible witness at all. But Laura Ditka, a bought and paid for criminal Zionist, put him on the stand as credible---truly unbelievable. It's the same as getting an old-school trench coat flasher to testify that a well-respected PhD College president is supposed to go to jail for the crimes of Sandusky the pedophile and his organization, The Second Mile. Penn State is not The Second Mile, nor is Graham Spanier the Director of the Second Mile. So what kind of treasonous insanity is going on in Josh Shapiro's OAG?

  11. To Truthseeker

    Yo: "Mike McQueary is also an exhibitionist, a compulsive gambler, a porn addict, and a known compulsive liar that was easily bribed to say what Shapiro and Ditka wanted him to say."

    I don't dispute your assessment here. But you are using facts collected after the act in Shower 2001 to disprove what McQueary saw. Meaningless! It is a matter of record that McQueaary's father, Dr. Dranov, JoePa, and Curley all BELIEVED McQueary witnessed some kind of sexual acting out upon a minor. And forget McQueary's spineless reaction to Sandusky, those four individuals were mandated both legally and ethically to notify a policing authority immediately without hesitation.

    The whole situation was never ever going to be resolved by these Penn State loyalists. There was only one option, call 911. And had that adult in the shower been a stranger, that's exactly what everyone would have done.

    TruithSeeker, your hypothetical example her screams empathy, competence and wisdom You: " I would have said first, "are you all right", then I would have asked Sandusky, "who is this youngster, and what are you doing here with him"?

    Yes, and that was what any of the four could have done had they not been intimidated by the revelation that Sandusky was the adult in that shower room.

    1. Mike4949,

      Well, I disagree with two of your arguments here: Being loyal to Penn State has nothing to do with whether this situation will ever be resolved. The situation was intentionally misrepresented by Tom Corbett's OAG to tarnish Penn State and ruin Graham Spanier. That "situation" or lie can be resolved by someone with a conscience who was involved in the fabrication. They can publicly state that the "rape" story was incorrect. Or, at the very least, Linda Kelly perhaps can go on the public record that an "error" was made in saying a boy was raped in the Penn State showers. Publicly stating untruths about Penn State for dirty politically vindictive reasons is not an issue of "loyalty to Penn State".

      And you say, "what any four could have done had they not been intimidated by Sandusky". First, "any four" could not have asked questions because only one was present to ask the questions that should have been asked of the boy and Sandusky. And that one was Mike McQueary.

      Judge Boccabella wrongly admonishes men that weren't there. 911 is not called days after the fact of a supposed emergency. That's why it's called 911 emergency. An emergency means an immediate threat of danger that needs immediate intervention. As I stated earlier, there was no rape or emergency occurring in the showers. Boccabella is trying desperately to continue a false narrative set in place by Tom Corbett. Why is there no prosecution or even a mention of Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile? After all, this is where Sandusky found these boys for his perverse pleasure. So this is quite obviously were the intimidation lies, not in goofy Sandusky, but in Arrow Ministries and The Second Mile.

    2. To Truthseeker

      I get your point and agree with your analysis re Corbett and Kelly. But if those two were to state the boy was in fact never raped, it still doesn't change nor alter the scenario that four professional adults walked away from a child alleged to be in immediate danger! That's the real story of Shower 2001! And that story must be retold, must be understood, must be appreciated so that when the next situation like Shower 2001 occurs (and it occurs every day), empathetic, brave adults will do the right thing -- IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT HESITATION!

      Think truthseeker, think! Had that kid been your own son, and those four professionals instantaneously refused immediate aid by instantaneously walking away, what would be your honest, fatherly reaction towards them?

      You: "And you say, "what any four could have done had they not been intimidated by Sandusky". First, "any four" could not have asked questions because only one was present to ask the questions that should have been asked of the boy and Sandusky. And that one was Mike McQueary."

      But Truthseeker, as soon as McQueary abandoned a boy he believed to have been raped without asking the questions you correctly cite, then instantaneously the responsibility to ask those questions fell upon Dr. Dranov, McQueary's father, and JoePa. And it was their responsibility, both legally and ethically, to have the police come in and ask those queries -- immediately without hesitation!

      You: "That's why it's called 911 emergency. An emergency means an immediate threat of danger that needs immediate intervention. As I stated earlier, there was no rape or emergency occurring in the showers."

      But you are making this statement 16 years later after the fact! This situation fulfilled the requirement as being an emergency at that precise 24 hour period in 2001. Yes! The fact it was later a bogus deal, in no way changes the reality that in real time that night a child was allegedly being assaulted. And if anyone wasn't sure at that time what was going on, then there was still one, and only one, legal and ethical option that had to be employed during those 24 hours. To dial 911 immediately without hesitation! Period and end of the emergency!

    3. Mike4949,

      You are now just repeating yourself with the faulty notion that the shower incident was an emergency. Even Mike McQueary the witness didn't think he saw an emergency. He has said as much that he didn't witness a rape and his words were twisted by the prosecution. So why do you continue to say, "McQueary abandoned a boy he believed to have been raped"? That is simply incorrect. I do agree however that McQueary did pass up the opportunity to ask questions.

      But you keep making your argument based on a falsehood----why? I would say that continuing to base your argument on a falsehood is a way for you to deny that you are wrong.

    4. Thanks for your reply.

      Again and again, McQueary's multiple changes of his story is irrelevant to what four profesional men were mandated to do during the 24 hours of Shower 2001.

      You: "Why do you continue to say, "McQueary abandoned a boy he believed to have been raped"?

      have you not been reading what the pundits and the folks on both sides of the Paterno aisle for the last 6 years been saying!? They all condemn McQueary for not "asking your questions", for not stepping in and stopping Sandusky, for not calling 911!

      You: "I would say that continuing to base your argument on a falsehood is a way for you to deny that you are wrong."

      Well my good fellow, my ego is very solidly secure and has no trouble admitting when it's wrong! I've worked with literally thousands of kids over the last 40 years, thus my whole deal here is reminding and educating everyone what they are legally and ethically mandated to do in any situation where they SUSPECT a pedophile performing his pedophilia! Call 911 immediately without hesitation! Had that call been made in 2001, you and I wouldn't be discussing anything today, and the pedophile Sandusky would have been prevented from assaulting any more kids for the next eight years!

    5. Mike4949,

      Speaking of "professional men" like the Attorney General of PA, Tom Corbett, sitting on Sandusky complaints for a decade. I would say THAT "professional man", state government mind you, is the one and only reason Sandusky was still operating at that point. In fact, Tom Corbett's inaction as law enforcement is the reason that Sandusky was even still around to fool people at Penn State at the time of the shower incident.

      The shower incident would not even have occurred if Tom Corbett had done his job as law enforcement. He had a decade to act on the complaints.

      Penn State, Graham Spanier, Joe Paterno, the children, and even Mike McQueary are all victims of Tom Corbett's dereliction of duty as the top law enforcement officer in PA. If any one person can be described as causing the most damage to the state of Pennsylvania and its people, it would have to be Tom Corbett. He is a grotesque monstrosity in human form.

      I wonder why Tom Corbett didn't call 911 with all the files he had on Sandusky's pedophilia? He disgracefully let it all continue allowing Sandusky 10 years to abuse, molest, and terrorize boys in Pennsylvania. "Ethically mandated" means Corbett should have picked up the phone immediately without hesitation!

    6. I hear you about Corbett. But his inaction was not the reason four professional men abandoned a child in danger that infamous evening in 2001. And the only victim in this whole scenario remains the alleged child victim in Shower 2001.

      Nevertheless, I appreciate your dogged determination to clarify an event so muddled. And I have come to realize, through your impassioned replies, that it is incumbent upon you and me to watch over our children with the tenacity of a mother bear protecting her cub.

      The lesson you and I have learned Truthseeker is the universal lesson all must apply to their knowledge bank. If a child is believed to be in danger, you either intervene immediately without hesitation; or call the proper authorities immediately without hesitation.

      Shower 2001 was an historical event that glorified and empowered hesitation over immediacy.

      Amen and Namaste

    7. Mike, you win the prestigious Dennis Ecker Award for the most tiresome one-note commentator on this blog since Ecker packed it in.

      God, you're boring. You have one point and you keep making it. Anybody who witnesses a child being raped, like Mike McQueary supposedly did in the grand jury report, should immediately intervene or call the cops.

      We've all got it. I guess it doesn't really matter to you that it never happened, and that the AG lied about that. Just keep making your point.

      You remind me of that Simpsons episode where the kids are singing The Children Are Our Future. Children, Future, Children, Future to a bored group of adults.

      And Homer says, "I never wanted a beer worse in my life."

      That's how I feel after I have to read another one of your boring comments.

    8. Wow Ralph, you just can't ignore me can you! Apparently boring posts are a deep seeded fascination for you! I truly respect your obsession. Smile.

      You: "You have one point and you keep making it. Anybody who witnesses a child being raped, like Mike McQueary supposedly did in the grand jury report, should immediately intervene or call the cops."

      Ralph, thank you for getting the message and extending its wisdom. Yes, the lesson to be learned in this whole shower room fiasco is when one isn't sure of ones next move -- think kid, think kid, think kid!

      Namaste my dear colleague and the best to your family.

    9. Thanks, Mike. As I've said previously, The Children Are Our Future.

      There was a lot of competition for the Ecker Award but you won it handily. Congratulations. And on my way home, if I pass any child rapes in progress, I promise to immediately contact the authorities.

      And now I need a Duff beer.

    10. Mike 4949,

      You keep referring to a "lesson" that is to be learned from the shower room incident. The only lesson I see here is how a corrupt Attorney General, as in Tom Corbett, can so easily tell a lie using the television and the newspapers to destroy good innocent men.

      So what we must learn is when we think we can trust someone in such a high position of public trust in Pennsylvania (The Governor), we better realize that what they say has a better than 50% chance of being a lie to direct our attention away from their crimes. And what we've learned is this Zionist cabal in Pennsylvania will bear false witness against anyone they perceive to be a threat to their agenda of corruption.

      Oh by the way Mike, the established and accepted term in our English language is "deep-seated" not deep "seeded". And that would be hyphenated. I see this sort of error quite frequently from people who are not big readers. They spell phonetically because they don't read much.

      Hope this doesn't offend you. But when people try to write what they think are eloquent arguments, and they make phonetic spelling errors it severely detracts from the credibility of the writer. We all make typos as we type, such as transposing "their" for there" or vise versa. And this is just a symptom of speed without enough editing. You may also want to activate some kind of spellcheck on your computer because as I read over your earlier posts, I see you have a few easily avoidable spelling errors. Have a great day!

  12. Hey moderator! I posted two replies to Truthseeker you didn't print! What's happening!?

  13. Here's a news flash Mike. I'm the moderator and as I have previously mentioned, you only have one thing to say, you've said it a dozen times. We all get your point.

    So when you try to be boring again, I'm going to whack you. Got it?

  14. Curley has lung cancer so his poor memory may be a side effect of chemotherapy. Chemo brain is a well documented side effect of chemotherapy and often causes memory lapses.

  15. The following is what John Ziegler said in an email to Christine Brennan in 2013 because he was so confident the judicial system would exonerate Spanier, Curley, and Schultz:

    "What are you going to say when the three former administrators are not convicted
    Christine? I am positive they are innocent. Otherwise, why would they have not
    flipped on each other by now?"


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.