New Movie Defending Joe Paterno Is Contemptible

“Framing Paterno” features people in deep denial about Penn State’s former football coach and his role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

A big reason last week’s presidential election went the way it did, many have pointed out in the days since, was because one side found themselves in something resembling an alternate reality, only getting news and information from hucksterish media figures who kept them in an epistemic bubble, before that bubble spectacularly popped on Nov. 6th.

Welcome to the Penn State version of that bubble. In “Framing Paterno,” a new, 32-minute mini-movie produced by John Ziegler and released last week on YouTube, we’re treated to—over ominous music—a revisionist history of the Jerry Sandusky case and Joe Paterno‘s firing, in which Paterno did nothing wrong and was railroaded by a conspiracy led by such nefarious forces as the university’s board and “the media.” Throughout, one thing is made clear: The biggest tragedy and outrage of the entire Sandusky episode was the way JoePa was treated.

Ziegler—a Bucks County native, sometime WIP host, and subject of a legendary 2005 magazine profile by the late David Foster Wallace—both directed the short film and appears on camera yelling at various reporters. Ziegler, who is not an alum and has no ties to Penn State, previously produced a pro-Sarah Palin documentary, so he’s experienced with defending the indefensible.

I’m sure the movie will make its own target audience very happy. But that doesn’t make it anything close to an accurate or fair representation of what happened in Happy Valley.

It’s actually much worse. Aside from the questionable facts, “Framing Paterno” is nothing less than an act of moral bankruptcy, for one simple reason: It has much, much more anger about the circumstances under which Joe Paterno was fired than it does about the unchecked molestation of several children. The two things aren’t remotely comparable, and the film’s failure to see that is what makes it utterly contemptible.

It’s really kind of sad, as we hear from a whole bunch of people still in deep, deep denial that their hero did a terrible thing, from university trustees to several ex-Penn State players. This includes Franco Harris, the Penn State and Pittsburgh Steelers football player who, with his constant Paterno apologies, has spent the past year systematically napalming his previously impeccable reputation.

I can understand that these people have loyalty to Penn State and to Joe Paterno, and that JoePa made a difference in their lives. But that doesn’t make him innocent of the very terrible thing he did. And this project’s lack of sympathy for Sandusky’s victims is absolutely appalling. If Ziegler or anyone he interviewed believes that the long-unpunished pattern of child abuse was a bigger tragedy or injustice than Paterno’s firing, none of them says so on camera.

What happened at Penn State—multiple people in power, over more than a decade, failing to stop a known child abuser—is, on the outrage scale, about 100 out of 100. Compared to that, Joe Paterno being forced out of his job a couple of weeks before he wanted to be is about a one out of 100. Even if Paterno had been railroaded completely, I would have considerably less sympathy for him than I do for the children who were abused.

The lack of perspective on display here is just breathtaking. We’re told that the “false media narrative … left devastation in its path.” Former Penn State player/Vince Fumo son-in-law Christian Marrone says, of Paterno’s firing, “I’d never felt that rage and anger … ever before.” Not even when he heard about all the children who were raped?

The movie explains away Paterno’s guilt with parsing, semantics and wild speculation. Mike McQueary never used the words “anal rape” when he told Paterno about the 2001 shower incident? But Paterno did testify that McQueary told him Sandusky and the boy were naked and doing “something of a sexual nature.” Sandusky was acquitted of the charge of raping that boy? He was also convicted of four other charges related to that same victim.

If Paterno knew in 2001 that the abuse was of a sexual nature and failed to demand Sandusky’s immediate arrest, that’s a smoking gun and the entire rationale of Zeigler’s documentary collapses. So Penn State trustee Anthony Lubrano alleges, without offering a shred of evidence, that the ailing Paterno must’ve been coached prior to his grand jury testimony, while also taking at face value Paterno’s laughable claim to not know what sodomy is.

Other major fallacies abound. The movie repeats the straw-man canard that “the media” made Paterno the villain and forgot about Sandusky; anyone who says that likely missed the significant media coverage of Sandusky’s trial. We’re asked why the Sandusky case got so much media attention while the molestation allegations against Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine did not. It may be because, while Sandusky was indicted, tried and convicted, the case against Fine collapsed, with multiple accusers recanting.

“Framing Paterno” shares something else with the right-wing Obama-scare genre: The biggest villain is always the media. “The media” is mentioned roughly every 15 seconds, as though the amorphous “media” committed worse acts than Sandusky himself.

Yes, there were times when individual reporters and outlets misreported various facts about the saga, which is also true of just about every major news story in history. Overall, though, the press treated the case with the gravity and seriousness that it deserved. Some reporters, such as the Patriot-News‘ Sara Ganim, who broke the story and won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on it, went well beyond even that.

At least when conservatives complain about media bias, the rationale is that the media is liberal. It’s never explained in the film why the press has an axe to grind with Penn State or Paterno, or has a motive to conspire against them. Did they all go to rival schools? Are they all Northwestern alumni, jealous of the Lions’ success in the Big Ten?

If there was any doubt about Paterno’s guilt, former FBI director Louis Freeh’s report eliminated it, with the exposure of damning emails and other university documents that prosecutors hadn’t previously been able to access. But the Ziegler film declares the Freeh Report inaccurate, just because they say it is. We’re never given any convincing evidence to doubt its conclusions. That Franco Harris says on camera that the report “exonerates” Paterno—which is the opposite of the truth—doesn’t make it so.

Penn State has done an admirable job picking up the pieces in the past year, and Bill O’Brien has done excellent work restoring both integrity and a winning attitude to the football program. I don’t doubt that the vast majority of people associated with the institution are understanding and accepting of the gravity of what took place there and working to make the university a better place.

Not the people associated with “Framing Paterno,” though. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Around The Web

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to ban impersonators and remove comments that contain personal attacks, threats, or profanity, or are flat-out offensive. By posting here, you are permitting Philadelphia magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

  • smokeybandit

    “At least when conservatives complain about media bias, the rationale is that the media is liberal”

    And there you have it. The entire rationale for this article.

  • OK, oh “wise one”…tell me, in great detail and truth/facts, in your opinion, what did JoePa do?

    • Mike4949

      Hi Marianne,thanks for your question!

      JoePa’s legal and ethical obligations were compromised, corrupted that infamous day in 2001!

      Why? Here’s why. Pennsylvania law regarding the specific process for reporting of child molestation to a superior in public education is always immediately trumped, always immediately ignored, always immediately dismissed, always immediately set aside when a kid is undergoing a molestation at the exact same time of discovery. That kid in Shower 2001 was in immediate emotional and physical danger that evening, through the night, and the next day and beyond. He needed help immediately! And yes, there are no facts, no evidence, no proof that can dispel this observation. When a kid is found in the state of molestation, you and the police always assume the worst and hope for the best. And that “worst” is always assumed to continue until a policing authority apprehends, steps in, and separates man from child. Again, when JoePa and McQueary were performing their pathetic conferencing ritual, a little boy, at the exact same time, was being terrorized!

      More encompassing, Four people were instantly exposed to that kid’s horrific on-going condition and did absolutely nothing to provide aid and protection — immediately without hesitation! The immediate kind of aid and protection that could only be provided without hesitation by a policing authority. I’m of course referring to Mike McQueary, John McQueary, the incompetent Dr. Dranov, and Joe Paterno. All four cunningly and purposefully abandoned, made invisible, ignored that little boy immediately without hesitation by instantaneously replacing his image with the image of one Jerry Sandusky. Yes, a thousand times yes, upon being apprised of the event of Shower 2001, their whole concern, their whole emotion, their whole effort was instantaneously directed towards a man of huge social iconic status within State College. A man with whom each had a long and significant acquaintance of many years! The evidence both circumstantial and direct screams out this fact!

      • Robert Inverso

        So Mike, what is your excuse for the police, DA, and child services that had an actual VICTIM in 1998 that showered with Sandusky, Sandusky himself saying he wished he was dead, and a psychology report stating Sandusky was grooming children.. and yet did nothing… not even tell Second Mile where Sandusky was getting his victims from? Where is all this public outrage for the people who should have stopped it three years before the 2001 incident? And again, nice cover up conspiracy Penn State had going there… what were they playing “lets see how many people we can involve and still keep this quite?

        • Mike4949

          Robert, thank you for your reply!

          You make an excellent point and I agree with you completely! All the red flags were there in Shower 1998 and people dropped the proverbial ball all over the place — including specific PSU administrators. But what happened in 1998 has absolutely and completely and totally nothing to do with what those four men failed to do in Shower 2001!

          Again, I agree with your vilification of certain folks in 1998, but their despicable failures had no influence on what JoePa and the rest needed to do both legally and ethically. That being to send a policing authority to investigate an alleged molestation of a minor It was that simple an act. An act unencumbered by anything else at that moment . Unless of course if you believe as I do that the fact the adult was not a stranger but Jerry Sandusky was the prime factor in that kid being completely ignored by everyone forever!

          Robert, you can’t go back to 1998 and claim what people should have done. They didn’t, which made 2001 a whole separate and independent moment.

          • Mike4949

            Another aside to Auther_Game

            Gary Schultz was the senior vice President of Business and Finance. He fiscally oversaw many university departments including the campus police. His main job there was to sign payroll checks.

            It is a matter of record that no one connected with the Penn State police department’s day to day operation i.e. the police chief, the police officers, detectives, and clerical staff had any knowledge of the 2001 Sandusky event. Chief of Police Harmon testified to this fact to the Grand Jury.

            And Schultz had no involvement with any policing activity. He didn’t carry a gun, arrest and detain suspects, investigate crime scenes. He kept records, watched over the budget, received crime reports. This is why he was able to separate himself from any involvement in any investigation. It was not in his job description to perform any police work. And the information he received from Paterno and McQueary was never turned over to the Penn State Police nor Children’s Protective Services.

            The “Chief of Police,” the proper authority? No way!

          • Arthur_game

            You are misconstruing my statement. What I am saying is that if anyone actually had training on the proper protocols, it would have been Schultz because of his position. Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. It would be interesting to find out how many specific investigations with which he was authoritatively involved due to his role with UPPD. It may be none.

        • remembervictims

          The 1998 DA’s own nephew has reported that his uncle repeatedly and bitterly complained that PSU was stymying his investigation. PSU even put up an uncertified “psychologist” to give a second opinion that of “horseplay”. Then only this “second opinion” was passed on to the authorities. These same authorities have testified that had they seen the actual psychiatrist’s testimony they would have voted for legal charges against Sandusky back in 1998. Victims have come forward back to when JS was only 22. So it’s likely that PSU has been covering up for far longer than 1998 or 2001.

          • Robert Inverso

            Again, you want to use the fact to suit your assumptions… you decide what you want to pick and choose is right in the Freeh Report, the Freeh report said NO ONE FROM PSU was involved with the investigation in 1998.. the Mother reported it straight to the police, the police, DA, and child services were involved, you want to keep going back at PSU… Here is a quote from the 1998 investigator with the State welfare department, Gerald Lauro, “I feel bad that there was not more information so I could have done something,” he said. “I feel bad that the mom thinks I should’ve done more. I just didn’t have all the information back then.” and they had Sandusky admitting to showering with the victim.. so when you say, “all they had to know is that a man was showering with a child it was criminal and wrong,” well I guess the PA state child services doesn’t agree with you.. and these are the people trained in detecting child abuse and suppose to protect our children, yet you want to push it back on the football coach…

      • Arthur_game

        You are correct Mike. I think even Joepologists agree that even if what Paterno received was a watered down report, immediacy was required. But Paterno did immediately report it to his boss and the head of the police. Is there any credibility to the argument that if you wait until the next day, and don’t go to the police, that receipt of a secondhand account only requires the thirdhand witness to report it to the proper people?

        On the actual email documentation alone, there is merit to the argument that none of the correspondences show concern for the victims. At the same time, it’s also very conceivable that you don’t write that stuff in there.

        After mulling over every single piece of accessible document, and reading both sides, I think that some combination of Spanier, Curley and Schultz are responsible for failing to report the incident to CYS/DPW. I think that blame ultimately goes to Spanier, but none the less Curley (by way of the email chain) was given the authority to decide (which was a bad decision by Spanier in and of itself, because he did not clearly direct Curley on what to do), and Schultz should have had some training on what to do as head of the police force. I don’t think the 1998 incident is exculpatory or incriminating. Sandusky was heralded as a hero for needy children. Thousands of youths passed through the Second Mile. I doubt that any praiseworthy person could withstand over three decades of service in that arena without weathering complaints. That is not to excuse behavior, it’s just the way it is. I therefore see the correspondences as the three officials seeing the 2001 incident as a human-resources/policy issue. Something akin to “hey, you have to knock this off!” We all now know that it was totally not that! I think if anything, the 1998 investigation would have supported that assumption as opposed to causing heightened scrutiny. In addition, Curley was further put-out by Second Mile basically laughing at him when he went to them to report the 2001 incident.

        Again, did these guys make errors? Yes. Should they be thrown in prison? The evidence just isn’t there. All the Joepologists are asking for is a bone from the media to actually and journalistically investigate the Freeh Report, the AG’s investigation, and the Board’s handling of the aftermath. Doubtful, since they can’t even get the facts right.

        • Mike4949

          Authur, thank you for your well written and thoughtful reply. But I’m totally chagrinned by this quote from your missive…

          “…Is there any credibility to the argument that if you wait until the next day, and don’t go to the police, that receipt of a secondhand account only requires the thirdhand witness to report it to the proper people? ”

          No, no credibility whatsoever!

          Your “hearsay” criticism of crime prevention is both juvenile and ignorant. Many and most crimes are reported to police every day by second, third, fourth parties and non witnesses. These are how many crimes are discovered — by honest citizens acting as honest informers. The police hear hearsay every day! And the police are the professionals who investigate and make judgment as to the viability of a crime actually having occurred. No one is ever sued for reporting what they think or observe might be a crime. It’s their civic duty.

          A civic duty, again performed every day. If you refuse the use of hearsay, then there will occur no discovery nor prevention of most crimes. Traditionally even the police heavily rely upon the second hand hearsay reports of informers (snitches!).

          If there is the slightest “suspicion” a child is in harm’s way, and you learn about this second hand, third hand, fourth hand ad infinitum, you make no assumptions nor evaluations. But you very definitely call the professional authorities, immediately and without hesitation, and let them make all the assumptions and all the evaluations. When a suspicion arises about an abusive event, if one errs, one always errs on the side of safety — a child’s safety.

          • Arthur_game

            Mike, that’s why I posed it as a question. Not to be called ignorant, but to listen and understand your side. The obvious question to Paterno is “why didn’t you call the police?” We all know his answer to that. Urgency is absolutely required of any person who is responsible for a victim. But the three days from witness to the ears of Schultz and Curley require focus for everyone scrutinizing or defending Paterno’s actions.

  • Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to cite one e-mail where there was a referencce made to “coach” Anyone who’s anyone knows Paterno was Never referred to as Coach, it was always Joe…so the coach in One e-mail was Sandusky.

  • You can’t wrap your chubby little head around the concept that Sandusky’s crimes were horrible, and Paterno could be unjustly accused? It’s too hard for you to separate these concepts it seems. The crimes are one thing. Freeh report is another. We don’t throw out due process just because the crime is horrible, in fact in error we let the guilty go free and those who should have done more off the hook (investigators, Second Mile, etc)

    • remembervictims

      Two wrongs don’t make a right and does not exonerate JoePoo’s reprehensible actions/ inactions. Yes, it is deplorable and highly suspicious that The Second Mile has not been investigated. If the good people of PA had demanded justice in that regard even one/ 100 thousandth as much as they have ranted about JoePoo then the authorities would have had to investigate The 2nd Mile. Where are your priorities PA?

  • Robert Inverso

    Why are you afraid of the truth coming out? For being so opinionated and sure of yourself.. answer these two questions for me, I know you won’t, you will hide with your tail between your legs just like every other Paterno hater I have asked. Ready? One. what “bad publicity” would Paterno, the football program, and PSU suffered or been afraid of in 2001 for turning in an EX COACH who was molesting children? I think they would have been considered heroes, so what bad publicity would they be so afraid of that they would let this monster go on, if they in fact knew that was what he was? Secondly, a cover up… any idea how many people knew about this with in a week of it being seen? At the least, 10, including the Director of the Second Mile… sounds like a hell of a cover-up to me. If indeed Paterno was this all controlling God, you writers make him out to be, and he wanted to cover it up… why didn’t he just tell Mike to keep his mouth shut about it, and not report it to the AD and VP? And the Second Mile? Makes no sense to me what so ever. But all knowing Mr. Silver please enlighten us with your wisdom.

    • Fred Nailo

      To suggest it would have not been bad publicity in 2001 is just silly.

      • Robert Inverso

        Ok Fred, again, from someone with a high opinion on the issue, cannot answer the question… What bad publicity would have come down from turning in a child molester in 2001?

        • Fred Nailo

          Not sure how this is some kind of difficult, mind-bending question. Sandusky was the architect of Linebacker U. The real question is how would his exposure as a pedophile NOT hurt the reputation of the program?

          Of course it wouldn’t have hurt the program as much as it ended up hurting the program.

    • Mike4949

      Robert, yours is a great question…

      “…what “bad publicity” would Paterno, the football program, and PSU suffered or been afraid of in 2001 for turning in an EX COACH who was molesting children? I think they would have been considered heroes, so what bad publicity would they be so afraid of that they would let this monster go on, if they in fact knew that was what he was?”

      And this question begs the ultimate question. If what you say is plausible, and I agree it is, then why did JoePa and McQueary then go ahead and immediately and without hesitation call 911 both knowing that “something” sexually untoward transpired between Sandusky and the kid?

      • Robert Inverso

        My point is that you don’t know exactly what McQueary said to Paterno.. there has been so many, “I sugar coated it,” “I made sure he knew it was sexual”, he told his dad and the Dr. he never saw anything sexual…

        That’s the problem I have with it. We don’t know what was discussed in that 10 minutes, 10 years ago. Let me throw something else at your, Even if the AD and VP knew about the 1998 investigation, full complete everything about it.. (which we don’t know, but lets assume) then they handled 2001 EXACTLY like the DA, Child services and police did, they set the mark in 1998 that showering with a child and making him feel uncomfortable is not something that is criminal, against the law or anything they could do about it. Only in 2001, PSU went farther, they reported it to the Director of the Second Mile, who Sandusky was employed by, and they also did nothing.

        Why is it so hard to believe, if you throw the media sensationalism out of the equation, that McQueary told Paterno Sandusky was doing something with a boy in the showers that made him uncomfortable, Paterno did what he was suppose to do and reported it to his boss since ‘Anal Rape” or sexual contact was not told to him by McQueary. Is it so hard to believe that the 74 year old football coach presumed it was handled?

        That is a lot easier for me to believe than Paterno tried to cover it up for a guy he really didn’t like and was no longer an employee of PSU, by calling the AD and VP and having them talk to MCQueary, then having them call in the outside council for PSU, then informing the Second Mile about it… A cover-up would have gone like this… “I got it Mike, I don’t want you to talk to anyone else about this ever…” The end.

        There is no double that the media, Linda Kelley, Chief Noonan, and Freeh, made untrue statements on national TV that put these three men in the cross hairs and set them up to be slaughtered by public opinion. Do I need to list the statements?

        • Well from Joe Pa’s own grand he learned of a sex crime against a child Sat morning, and not only did not report it to the police, he didnt tell anyone until the next day so as not to interrupt their weekend. The damage to his reputation seems to be mostly self inflicted

    • remembervictims

      First of all, JoePoo Knew that the AD and the VP, his own personal friends would cover up for him. And if you think that this wouldn’t have tainted the FB program you are naive. Oops, wait a minute that’s already been proven.

      • Robert Inverso

        Joe Poo, grow up you POS. How would it have effected the football program?

  • Robert Inverso

    “Yes, there were times when individual reporters and outlets misreported various facts about the saga, which is also true of just about every major news story in history. Overall, though, the press treated the case with the gravity and seriousness that it deserved.”

    Are you kidding me?? When the story broke Sara said the State police commended Paterno for how he handled himself, a day later he was target number 1, it moved from a Sandusky story to a Paterno Penn State Football Story… I guess the media didn’t have anything to do with that did they?

    You believe the Freeh report? Your a bigger fool that I thought. The Freeh report NEVER INTERVIEWED a single important witness in the case! Yet brags it is a comprehensive report… Let me do your financial report, but, I’m not going to look at your bank accounts or credit cards…

    • remembervictims

      Oh, give up about the Freeh Report, already. In case you didn’t know – wasn’t allowed to interview those who would be giving testimony in the trial. When will you ever listen to the facts? It really is childish to let yourself continue in this puerile state of self-deception. It does not become an adult which I assume that you are.

      • SAS

        No one claims that Freeh could have interviewed the people who were charged with crimes – Curly and Schultz. However, he neglected to interview many others whom he could have interviewed – including Joe Paterno. Instead he waited for Paterno to die and the besmirched his reputation when Paterno had no ability to defend himself. It would have been wiser to wait until those who were involved could have been interviewed before making a rush to judgement by substituting supposition for facts.

        • Freeh and his group was in discussion with Joe Pa’s representative for him to testify in December, but his health deteriorated to fast for anything to come of it. So it was not like Freeh was purposely ignoring him.

          And if he wanted to defend himself, he could have come out and say make a statement explaining why he did not make that call to the Police on getting information of a sex crime against a child

      • Robert Inverso

        So, you want us to just concede that the report used to punish PSU is a complete report instead of the fraud bull sh* document it is. Sorry, not going to happen. Freeh had an agenda outline for him by Corbett and The BOT’s, and did it.

      • Robert Inverso

        So your ok, with it begin called a “complete and comprehensive” report of what happened?

  • SAS

    This article is more of the same kind of rhetoric that has led to the unfair treatment of a man who represented our state with the highest level of integrity for over 60 years. No supporter of Joe Paterno argues that the wrongs that have been committed against him are in any way comparable to the horrible crimes committed against the young and innocent victims of Jerry Sandusky. However, the fact that these injustices pale in comparison to child molestation, does not mean that they are not wrong and should not be defended against.
    The Zielgler documentary presents a side of the story that has not been given much mainstream attention. Your article does not refute many of the facts presented in the documentary but merely rehashes unsupported allegations from the past. The Freeh report does not contain evidence showing that Joe Paterno knew of the molestation charges dating back to 1998. Rather, it makes unsupported conclusions that would never hold up to the scrutiny of a courtroom. The only email the report points to is a reference to “Coach”, a moniker that Paterno was not typically associated with. Further, this “evidence” is unreliable hearsay to which Freeh attaches an unsupported meaning. Besides this one email, which has not been subject to testimony by either its author, its recipient or the supposed person to whom it refers, there is nothing that even remotely attaches Paterno to a coverup.

    To castigate defenders of due process and fairness as uncaring about the molestation of children is at a minimum unfair. The facts will eventually come out and if Joe Paterno was guilty of a coverup there will be plenty of time to consider the impact of his actions upon his legacy. In the meantime, it would have been wise to keep an open mind and to withhold punishment until the facts of the case could be considered in the cold light of day.

    • Fred Nailo

      Due process is not found by throwing Mike McQueary under the bus.

      • SAS

        Agreed. Due process is not served by throwing anyone under the bus. But it is certainly fair to point out that Mike McQueary has changed his testimony several times. Additionally, it has been made clear that from where Mike McQueary was standing he could not have possibly seen into the shower.

        • Fred Nailo

          Is it fair for the “2-time academic all-american” who is beyond reproach (give me a break) to question McQueary’s credibility, then for Franco to suggest Mike told him something that suggested there was no sexual assault happening, then for his old roommate to pile on without McQueary able to defend himself?

          There are very legitimate reasons why McQueary’s testimony could have changed. This was an intense trauma with a subject matter that is highly difficult to process let alone speak of.

          It is certainly NOT clear that he couldn’t see into the shower. Don’t drink that kool-aid.

          This case has been tried and the jury found Sandusky GUILTY of one first degree felony and 3 misdemeanors.

          • SAS

            I am not killing McQueary. However, while his inconsistent testimony may be understandable it is still inconsistent. The same rationale for excusing his lack of consistency also make his testimony less persuasive.
            It is true that Jerry Sandusky did horrible things. No one that defends Penn State or Joe Paterno denies that. However, he has been prosecuted for these crimes and will pay for them for the rest of his life. The fact that he is guilty in no way makes the school or Joe Paterno culpable. While we all want to express our outrage at the things that happened it is not fair or helpful to castigate those who have not done anything wrong without a fair chance to defend themselves.

          • Fred Nailo

            You may not be hanging Mcqueary out to dry, but this video does. His testimony was good enough to get guilty verdicts on 3 of 4 charges without even the presence of the victim.

            The fact that Sandusky was guilty of committing these crimes on campus might certainly implicate the University and it is yet to be seen is Spanier, Curley and Schultz had culpability in the cover-up.

            Paterno will never have a fair chance to defend himself and he will never be guilty in my book. There will *always* be reasonable doubt.

          • SAS

            I think we agree. I am not sure that the video is fair to McQueary. However, I do think there are reasonable reasons to at least question the credibility of his testimony. Further, many in the media cite his testimony to the grand jury without including the fact that he recanted that testimony in the trial. Since this documentary is underscoring the media bias with regard to this case, it is appropriate to address the fact that the media is not reporting the inconsistencies in McQueary’s testimony.
            Curly, Schultz and Spanier will have their day in court. I am reserving judgement with regard to them until the facts come out in court. I suspect we will see a whole different side to this (as happened in the Duke Lacrosse trial) but I am keeping an open mind.
            As for Joe Paterno, he will never get his day in court. When a person lives his life in the exemplary fashion that Joe Paterno lived his, he deserves the presumption of innocence. To believe that Coach Paterno knowingly turned a blind eye to these crimes or, even worse, covered them up, is to ignore his lifelong dedication to the betterment of young people and to a life lived with the utmost of integrity.

          • Well by his own grand jury testimony, he was told of a sex crime and did not call the police. And he did not call anyone for an entire day because he didnt want to “interrupt their weekend. Does not sound to exemplary to me. You get the presumption of innocence in a court. The rest of us can make our own decisions based on what we see

          • remembervictims

            What exemplary model? Giving money to the library that he got to write off his taxes? Forcing his will on the university, including seeing that his players got slaps on the wrists for major crimes? Although, he seems repulsive to me, he sure seems to have known how to “hornswoggle” the naive of the unHappy Valley. Naivete, however, is inexcusable when you are dealing with the lives of dozens of innocent little boys (the count of lawsuits, at the last count I heard was approaching 25!)

          • SAS

            Now you are just being stupid. You show that you are just a Joe hater and really have no interest in the victims. If you cannot recognize the contributions that Joe Paterno made to the community and to the young people who hew worked with for over half a century, you have no credibility.

          • Those contributions “evaporated” when he turned his back on a victim by not reporting a sex crime against a child to the police. People who have preferred less contributions combined with more turning in child molesters

          • remembervictims

            If JoePed’s own testimony doesn’t convince you of his complicity then nothing will. The willing blindness of his cultists is absolutely mind-boggling to those of us who don’t care for the taste of Kool-aid.

          • remembervictims

            Were you at the trial, Sas? I was. MM’s testimony was forceful, compelling and convincing. So much so that jurists said that his testimony was what made up their minds! He never changed his testimony. He did, however, not mention every single detail to every one he talked to. He did not give every detail to JoePoo, but certainly did give the overall picture to him, according to JoePoo’s own sworn testimony. What’s so difficult for you and the JoePoo cultists to understand about “SEXUAL in nature” and that “MM was visibly shaken”? MM, who loved Pedo State has NO reason to lie, but has insisted on telling the truth since day one, even though it lost him his job. Yes, we all feel that MM could have done more, but he did more than anyone else involved with Pedo State. More, I’m sure, BTW that it appears you would have done. Wake up! Accept reality, your golden calf turned out to be made of fool’s gold and that is what you remain until you take off the blinders. BTW, just why is it the whole world “hates Penn State”? Jealousy? Of what? Outside the unHappy Valley, nearly no one gave a second thought to PSU – it was and is that insignificant.

          • SAS

            Your references to “Joe Poo” and “Pedo State” bely your true motivations and show that you cannot be taken seriously. Why is it that the people of the lowest moral fiber feel compelled to tear down those with the highest level of integrity?

          • remembervictims

            You should answer that question yourself. Why do you feel the need to attack my credibility when you know nothing about me and have zero evidene? In the case of Joe— there is no lower moral fiber than that of a pedophile enabler and I base my opinion on his actions/ inactions and his own sworn testimony and that of others – pretty credible, I would say.

          • Rocco Mariano

            Don’t be so quick to turn Mike McQueary into a solid citizen. When he went home the night of the shower incident he told his father’s colleague – Dr. Dravnov that he did not see anything sexual. He denied it three times. It was Dravnov who then told him he should go to Paterno. Dravnov and McQueary’s father are obligated reporters based on law because they are doctors. When you couple this with the fact he did in fact change his testimony you do have to question his integrity and possible motivation. As for doing anything, it is unthinkable to believe that a 28 year old man would not have the common sense to call the police or at least beat the snot our of a man who was attacking a child in the shower. If it was so bad, how do you justify him running out of there? You cannot sit on your high horse and say he did the most of anyone when he ran like a coward. As for the Freeh report, if you had any intelligence and read the whole thing you will find that the evidence does not overwhelmingly support a cover-up. In the one email, “coach” is referred to by Curley in 98 and most everyone assumes that refers to Paterno. Joe was never called coach. He was referred to as Joe. Sandusky was known as Coach. Also, based on state laws, Paterno would have no idea of the nature of the investigation unless charges were filed and we all know they weren’t.

          • You know at the trail, Dranov’s testimony does not say he denied it three times, so where are you getting your information?

          • Rocco Mariano

            Dravnov’s testimony is in the grand jury report release and was reported publicly by Sara Ganim who won Pulitzer prize for her work covering this story. It is there in black and white. He said he asked McQueary three times if he saw any sexual activity and McQueary said not. Dranov did say McQueary was upset.

          • Rocco Mariano

            Just to clarify, it is not specifically found in the grand jury presentment as that document does not record all testimony and is usually a summarization. However, reporters inside covering the grand jury noted it as his version.

          • Interesting in the Dranov in the Sandusky Trial says nothing about it. He just states that McQueary said nothing. The grand jury testimony is not in the public record, so how do you explain the discrepancy between what was supposedly said in the Grand Jury and what actually was said in the SanduskyTrial

          • Robert Inverso

            You lying POS, you were at the trial… give me a break.

        • Mike4949

          To SoS! But what McQueary thought he saw or didn’t see is completely irrelevant to what needed legally and ethically to be done in Shower 2001. To wit:

          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 without hesitation. Period! You let the policing experts take over and investigate the legality or illegality of the scene — the accuracy or inaccuracy of the report.

          • SAS

            Joe Paterno did not see him in the shower. Whatever was told to Joe Paterno was told well after Sandusky and the boy had long left the shower.
            No one disputes that Paterno told his superior and the head of Penn State police. The Penn State police have jurisdiction over the Penn State campus – not the State College Police. You claim that Paterno had a legal obligation to do more than he did yet the DA specifically exonerated him in the presentment.
            Having reported what he knew, Paterno was wise to back off and let the proper authorities investigate and do their jobs. Remember, that Sandusky had not been in Paterno’s employ for three years at the time of this incident.

          • Fred Nailo

            Schultz was not a police officer, so calling him head of Penn State police is a little misleading. He was a VP in charge of Finance who oversaw that department.

          • SAS

            You cannot seriously be claiming that notifying the head of police does not count as notifying the police.

          • Fred Nailo

            Mike4949 did a good job at answering this one. It would be like reporting something to the county commissioner vs the local police department. Schultz was not a cop and had no oath of office.

          • Mike4949

            That’s exactly what Fred is claiming because notifying Schultz does not count as notifying any police officer.

            Another way of looking at this, if one spies a crime, one never calls the Police Commissioner — one calls the beat cop in the field. 911 is for a policeman, not a police administrator.

          • remembervictims

            Informing your buddy who you know will cover-up for the football team does not count as notifying the police.

          • SAS

            Once again, like so many who feel compelled to comment on this case, you substitute supposition for facts. Schultz was not Paterno’s buddy, just the person that the knew that had the police report to him. There is nothing in the record that indicates that Paterno wanted to cover up the crime. To the contrary, he told his superiors, as well as the head of police, what he knew about it. He testified truthfully to the grand jury. He made no effort to silence anyone. We will see at the upcoming trials whether there was a coverup. However, if there was one, Paterno was not involved with it.

          • remembervictims

            Pathetic. Pathetic is all I can say. As well as incredulous. Grasping at straws. What is the spell that this short, cowardly enabler has over the die-hards? If you have the need for a god to worship, why don’t you go to church and worship the Real God.

          • Robert Inverso

            How did that work out for all the choir boys?

          • He was the VP of Business and Finance. Not the police, not even close. And even if he did report to his “superiors” that still did not meet the requirements of Federal Law. As if you needed Federal Law to tell you to call the cops for cases of child molestation

          • SAS

            According to the DA, Joe Paterno met the requirements of the law. That is without question.

          • Billyboy172

            Chuck if Shulz wasn’t the head of police why was he the focal point of all the info about the 1998 investigation. It went through him and he had the file. Why would the VP of Business and Finance have that if he wasn’t in charge of the Campus Police? Open your eyes and think a little bit.

          • Robert Inverso

            Again, why cover it up? You still have not explained to me what huge embarrassment turning in an ex football coach would have had on the school or program.

          • I explained up top but to review:

            Penn State gave Sansukey emeritus status, an office on campus and allowed him to bring children on campus grounds after the 1998 investigation. One of the PSU Police detectives investigating testified that he told Sandusky is was wrong to shower with children and to stop after 1998. Sandusky admitted giving bear hugs to minors in the shower in 1998 and still got this status? You dont think there would have been questions about the first 1998 incident after the second incident in 2001.

            And then again why does the 2001 incident provoke less investigation than the 1998 one. Why are the police not involved at all

          • SAS

            First, Sandusky’s retirement package was negotiated before any of these charges were known to the PSU administration. Second, once the package was negotiated, the PSU general counsel, former PA State Supreme Court Justice Baldwin, told the university that they could not take away Sandusky’s campus access as it was part of a negotiated package.

            There are three trials coming up in January and they will answer some of your questions. Did Schultz Curley and Spanier pass what they knew on to investigators, why was Sandusky not prosecuted in 2001, what did TSM have to do with all of this, was MM’s inconsistent statements credible to them, why or why not? Curley and Schultz have not been able to defend themselves as they await trial. They may be guilty of not following up properly – we will have a court case to determine that. However, the Freeh report’s credibility has been sufficiently exposed so that its conclusions are not believable.

            What we do know is that there is no credible evidence tying Joe Paterno to a coverup. Consequently, the NCAA’s actions against PSU were at a minimum premature.

            It is obvious that the system failed. It would appear that countless good people had the opportunity to stop this earlier than it was stopped. However, that is after the fact. At the time it was happening, my guess is that things did not appear as clear. You cannot tell me that these good people – Spanier was a family therapist who was the victim of abuse himself, Joe Paterno dedicated his life to the betterment of young people, there is nothing in Curly or Schultz’s background to indicate that they were anything other than good and decent people. The argument that they covered up such heinous crimes to protect the university from bad publicity goes against everything we know about the nature of these men.

          • We already know the answer to that question. They did not report the 2001 incident to outside investigators. In his Feb 28, 2001 email Spanier talks about the “downside of not having reported it” Your blindness to even basic fact put your belief that they could not do such a thing in the face of email such as this is astounding.

            How do you explain the Grand Jury testimony of Schultz who said the McQueary told him of Sandusky wrestling with a young boy and possibly grabbing his genitals and NOT reporting it to the police?

            If Spanier did not think anything was wrong, why did he insist on Sandusky getting professional help. Its not Freeh’s conclusions that have been exposed, but yours

          • Mike4949

            Gary Schultz was NOT the Chief of Police! He was the senior vice President of Business and Finance. He fiscally oversaw many university departments including the campus police. His main job there was to sign payroll checks.

            It is a matter of record that no one connected with the Penn State police department’s day to day operation i.e. the police chief, the police officers, detectives, and clerical staff had any knowledge of the 2001 Sandusky event. Chief of Police Harmon testified to this fact to the Grand Jury.

            And Schultz had no involvement with any policing activity. He didn’t carry a gun, arrest and detain suspects, investigate crime scenes. He kept records, watched over the budget, received crime reports. This is why he was able to separate himself from any involvement in any investigation. It was not in his job description to perform any police work. And the information he received from Paterno and McQueary was never turned over to the Penn State Police nor Children’s Protective Services.

            The “Chief of Police,” the proper authority? No way!

          • Mike4949

            Yes JoePa did have a legal and ethical obligation to notify the police instantly!
            And JoePa’s legal and ethical obligations were compromised, corrupted that infamous day in 2001!

            How? Here’s how. Pennsylvania law regarding the specific process for reporting of child molestation to a superior in public education is always immediately trumped, always immediately ignored, always immediately dismissed, always immediately set aside when a kid is undergoing a molestation at the exact same time of discovery. That kid in Shower 2001 was in immediate emotional and physical danger that evening, through the night, and the next day and beyond. He needed help immediately! And yes, there are no facts, no evidence, no proof that can dispel this observation. When a kid is found in the state of molestation, you and the police always assume the worst and hope for the best. And that “worst” is always assumed to continue until a policing authority apprehends, steps in, and separates man from child. Again, when JoePa and McQueary were performing their pathetic conferencing ritual, a little boy, at the exact same time, was being terrorized!

          • SAS

            No, Gary Schultz was not the chief of police. He was the person to whom the chief of police reports. Further, he was someone with whom Joe Paterno was familiar. It is only natural that if Paterno had something to report, that he would report it to Gary Schultz. He had a reasonable expectation that Schultz would share this with his charges who did police activity. Had Paterno reported this matter to someone with whom he had less confidence, he might have been more diligent in following up.
            We will soon hear Schultz’s explanation for this. Either way, Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal and moral obligation by referring the case to his superior and the head of campus police.

          • Mike4949

            SAS – Thank you for your reply.

            Interesting your quote: “…It is only natural that if Paterno had something to report, that he would report it to Gary Schultz.”

            So hypotheticaly, if the kid was recognized as being JoePa’s grandson, is it your hypothetical position he would have “naturally” waited a day and then go to Schuiltz?
            Please respond with an honest, from the gut, hypothetical answer.

          • SAS

            It is not possible to honestly answer your question because we don’t know what Joe Paterno was told that evening. This much we do know, whatever he was told was well after the fact and after there was any opportunity to stop the act. Mike’s previous post acts as if Paterno had an opportunity to stop Sandusky in his tracks. This is not supported in any way. Since he was told whatever he was told late in the evening, it is certainly understandable that he waited until the next day to report what he had heard to his superiors. Joe Paterno spent his lifetime advancing the cause of young people. He did this sometimes at the expense of his own children so I don’t know that the hypothetical involvement of his grandson would have made any difference.

          • Mike4949

            SAS, thank you for your reply.

            You continue to mislead. How? Because you have absolutely no proof or knowledge the act of molestation had stopped that evening. None! Nada!

            Let me make you understand the victimology of Pedophilia. When a kid is under the power of a pedophile, he or she is considered to be physically and psychologically molested continuously, 24 hours a day forever, until a policing authority separates adult from child. SAS, nothing stopped that evening, the next day, and beyond! Geeeeze!

            So yes, that next day WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO STOP THE ABUSE — by just calling 911!

            And so, given these facts, it was certainly NOT understandable that he waited until the next day to report what he had heard to his superiors. And SAS, don’t cop out on me with your last sentence: “…so I don’t know that the hypothetical involvement of his grandson would have made any difference.”

            Yes you do! Yes I do. If it were our kid, we would have immediately gone out and tracked down the grandson while speed dialing 911. It’s what anyone would have done. Anyone that is who did not have a personal acquaintance with Sandusky! (see Paterno and McQueary). Geeeeeze!


          • SAS

            I am not misleading anyone. Your answer is absurd. It is indicative of the whole effort to taint the whole Penn State community with a broad brush because a predator existed in their midst. I have news for you, these predators exist in every community. That is the real lesson people should be learning from this tragic case. If it could happen at a place like Penn State it could happen anywhere.
            Once again you show that you do not know the facts of this case but you feel compelled to have an opinion. Joe Paterno was not a friend of Jerry Sandusky. He couldn’t stand him and would have replaced him earlier if not for Sandusky’s popularity in the community. The thought that he would have jeopardized his own reputation in order to protect Sandusky is patently absurd.

          • remembervictims

            No, it is patently obvious.

          • According to the Grand Jury report, Joe Paterno received the news Saturday MORNING not evening, so he waited an entire day to report. What kind of set of priorities lead someone to do that

          • SAS

            Don’t know. I wish Joe was alive so we could ask him. If Freeh wanted to know, he would have been sure to ask him when he had the chance. He did not.

  • Robert Inverso

    “The movie repeats the straw-man canard that “the media” made Paterno the villain and forgot about Sandusky; anyone who says that likely missed the significant media coverage of Sandusky’s trial. ”

    The ONLY reason there was significant coverage of the Sandusky Trial was because Paterno was dead. One numb-nuts from CNN, right after the guilty verdict came out, said that it proved Paterno knew about and covered up for Sandusky… HOW the hell did it? No, all it proved was Sandusky was guilty but yet again, one of your media pals, throw it at Paterno.

    Silver, you want a real story and show what you are made of… how about going after the Police, DA, Child Service, and other state agencies, that were involved int he 1998 investigation. They had a psychologist report saying Sandusky was grooming kids and fit the mold of a child molester, they had Sandusky on tape saying he showered with a boy, and “wished he was dead”.. yet did not prosecute or even tell the Second Mile, where he was getting his victims, about the investigation. Why won’t you, because your a lazy pig that figures it would be easier to sit and regurgitate the same crap without an ounce of backing. I guess you think it is ok for Linda Kelley to announce in her press conference that McQueary reported seeing a boy being subjected to “anal sex” was ok too, especially since he NEVER said that to anyone!

    • remembervictims

      FYI “your a lazy pig” should read “you’re a lazy pig”. Just what kind of a non-education did you get?

    • remembervictims

      See my post above – it shows the probable complicity of a PSU complicity back in 1998!

  • Robert Inverso

    OH, yeah… and where is the victim from that incident McQueary saw? I’m pretty sure if something more had happened during that incident, he would be out front of the law suits…. Oh, and why are you giving a Freeh Pass to the janitor that supposedly saw something more horrible that anything he saw in Vietnam and the other janitor that he reported it too? How is that ANY differentness that Joe and Mike? But no one is outraged because he claimed he didn’t tell because he was afraid of being fired… Here is what happened, and prove me wrong if you can. Paterno and Penn State football were the two biggest fish in the story, and the press was salivating at the chance to bring Paterno down, and jumped.

    • Fred Nailo

      Don’t be so sure about anything about the victims. They have been through hell. Victim#2 is pressing civil charges and he is entitled to pursue justice in his case however he sees fit.

      At that point in time, we can assess his credibility and for now we must wait.

      The appearance of Joe Amendola in this video is a crime in itself.

    • remembervictims

      Oh, give up, already. BTW the Shower Boy has come forward and did announce he was bringing a lawsuit against PSU.

      • Robert Inverso

        You know for someone who is so distraught by sexual abuse and enablers, your comments such ad Joe Ped and Shower Boy are an insult to the victims that suffered.. please go away

  • Fred Nailot

    First thing this group decides to do is say that Sandusky is innocent of all charges in the Mike McQueary case. That is not a great strategy.

    A jury of his peers convicted Sandusky of four counts in that case, including a first-degree felony. So, to contest that, you would think this group would present some new facts. Think again.

    Keep in mind that during trial McQueary testified that a naked Sandusky pressed the naked boy to the wall from behind and was slowly moving his hips. That is what McQueary testified he saw after hearing slapping noises that he thought was sex that drew his attention to look in the shower.

    Franco Harris ‘knows’ there was no sexual assault because McQueary told him directly that he didn’t see penetration. McQueary told the jury the same thing (he didn’t see the front of Sandusky and the back of the boy because they were touching) and they dismissed that particular charge. That shouldn’t be cause for celebration. What was happening was not okay and was certainly sexual assault – penetration or not.

    Mr Gray, who obviously still sympathizes with Sandusky, postulates a theory that McQueary coached Paterno what words to use when he testified. This is absurd. Paterno was an adult, was entirely lucid, and clearly would not have been told what to say.

    Mr Pitz accuses McQueary of being a serial liar because McQueary implicated him in certain off-field shenanigans that affected his playing time. Is somebody bitter? Then he says there is no way he could possibly do anything bad because he is a 2-time academic all-american. Don’t forget to mention your GPA, Mr Pitz. As if that has to do with anything. How does Mr. Pitz’s statements prove McQueary is lying about what he saw in the shower? What would have been McQueary’s motive for lying?

    Mr Marrone, the eminent prosecutor, asks ‘why would the prosecution dare mention anal sodomy?’ Uh, maybe because that is likely what Sandusky was doing in the shower. Did you read the testimony? The prosecution wanted the jury to decide. The jury did find Sandusky guilty of a felony and three misdemeanors. What was happening in the shower was not okay.

    I have an idea. Let’s toss in a non-fact and have the king of non-facts verify it. Can we get Joe Amendola in here? Victim#2 is on record saying nothing ever happened. Amendola’s appearance alone kills the credibility of this ‘mini-movie’.

    The Bernie Fine argument vs ESPN may have had some validity but it is already crumbling because the charges were dropped. I did enjoy the on-field gotcha interview, though. It had a certain entertaining quality.

    ‘Coach’ was not Paterno. Whatever you say, Mr. Blehar. I think you’re wrong. Don’t give up, though, there is much truth left to uncover. This tidbit of insight, however, is far from conclusive. I do agree that Freeh took it way too far and was likely a Corbett pawn. Focus on Corbett and The Second Mile.

    In summary, when Mr. Marrone says ‘Louis Freeh had a conclusion in mind and tried to fit the scant evidence he did have to fit that conclusion’, that might be true, but that is also exactly what is being done in this video. Paterno was framed, they say, so let’s find a way to make that true.

    This “logic fail” of a video may push the discussion forward, so it could be that it doesn’t do as much damage in the long run as it does now.

    The problem with failed arguments is that when one domino falls, everything else you are saying with any validity goes along with it.

    There still is a reasonable doubt to the argument that Joe knew what was going on and was willfully negligent. Can we just not lose sight of that? He will never be convicted and isn’t around to defend himself.

    ‘The media is not constructed to handle a story as complex as this’, says this video’s author. Considering this work product, neither are you Mr Zieglar.

    It is sad to see a few people who loved a great man be so hurt and be grasping for straws. It is also just disturbing to see certain people looking to advance their own personal agendas.

    • Fred Nailo

      Ziegler’s silence to this criticism is deafening.

    • Arthur_game

      Good points, I can agree with some, and I will address paragraph by paragraph:

      (1) No one is claiming that Sandusky is innocent of all the charges in the Mike McQueary case. Sandusky was convicted and that is that. The issue here is that it is being ‘reported’ that the Prosecution decided not to put V2 on the stand because he was going to testify that nothing happened on that date. In that world, then Yes, Sandusky would still be a serial pedophile who is innocent of those charges on that specific date. But even in this world, the issue there is two-fold, (a) whether McQueary’s testimony was credible; and (b) the veracity of McQueary’s report to Paterno, then Curley and Schultz. Iow, if McQ really did not see anything, then it is likely that he would not have told P/C/S that he saw something as serious as anal rape. At the same time, if McQ simply said, “What I saw made me very uncomfortable”, should have raised a red flag, particularly to Schultz as head of the police force. Even if Schultz did not believe that Sandusky had committed a crime on that evening, does not mean that he should not have reported it to through the proper channels.

      (2) The basic new facts, I guess, are that McQ’s story has changed several times and his statements to others are suspicious. In addition, the prosecution did not bring V2 forward and is still labeling him as an unknown victim raises serious questions about the strength of their case in Sandusky’s trial. It raises less questions in regards to the cases against Schultz and Curley. Why? Even if nothing happened at all, you are still required to report.

      (3) The only part of McQ’s testimony that hasn’t changed is the rhythmic slapping sounds.

      (4) I agree to a certain extent for the cases against S/C/S. Just the fact that it made McQ uncomfortable should have been enough to say, “Hey, we have to report this.” The only thing I find baffling is the amount of time McQ waited, if it was that serious, to press the issue. I think we need more pressure on Curley, Schultz and McQueary about everything that was said at their meetings. Curley and Schultz haven’t been granted the opportunity of direct testimony from their attorney (i.e. their side of the story). We may find out more. McQ has basically testified that Curley and Schultz didn’t ask any questions.

      (5) I don’t believe McQ coached Paterno. However, a good attorney will ask or should know whether McQ and Paterno discussed the GJ investigation and their testimonies prior to either testifying. I find it more logical that Baldwin would have spoken to Paterno at some point before Paterno opted to retain his own private counsel. During that discussion, it is possible to create “inception”. In these sorts of circumstances, a good attorney will tell her client ONLY what the client needs to know about the process and the basics of the investigation of the Defendant. E.g. Mr. Sandusky is being investigated by a grand jury. You have been subpoenaed and it is my understanding that the reason for your appearance will relate to an incident in which Mike McQueary told you something in early 2000’s about Sandusky and another individual on PSU property. A bad attorney will tell Paterno all of the testimony said by particularly McQ. In that circumstance you would be surprised as a non-attorney how much bleed-over and false memory triggers you get in subsequent testimony. At the same time, Paterno said what he said, and you can speculate but you have to accept his testimony as stated.

      (6) I think it is rash to call McQ a liar. His testimony is wildly inconsistent however. I think this points more to selectivity of the prosecution’s charges, vetting McQ’s story, and the strength of the prosecution’s case against Schultz and Curley, particularly. People lie far less under oath than they just give testimony that is partially truthful while the remainder supports their personal agenda of protecting themselves.

      (7) You are mixing up the GJ presentment and the trial of Sandusky. What Marrone was saying was that the “anal rape” words should not have been permitted in the Presentment because McQ testified that he did not see intercourse. People don’t realize that the GJ Presentment is basically an argument to support the charges, and less of a statement of actual proven findings. I agree with Marrone on this one. Does it matter? Not to Sandusky, but more to the remaining charges against S/C/S/P.

      (8) I don’t see why interviewing Amendola kills the movie. You need to explain that. I see Amendola’s usefulness in pointing out that V2 has been on record as saying nothing happened that evening – not to acquit Sandusky but to corroborate the argument that McQ really did not see anything or hear anything sexual. However, you still need to prove that McQ gave a “horsing around” statement to P/C/S and not something more.

      (9) The charges were dropped because of the SOL, not because of lack of evidence. Two ball boys claimed molestation for twenty years. Another individual came forward after ESPN released the tape that it had for almost 10 years! That individual later recanted his story. That’s not crumbling. The issue here is that there has been ZERO investigation by the NCAA; and (2) ESPN dragged Paterno through the mud knowing that it had essentially did the same thing it accused of Paterno – failing to do more. However, in ESPN’s case it was the secondhand witness and not the third, because it had the recorded conversation.

      (10) Coach could be Paterno. The email is subject-lined “Re: Joe Paterno”. I think more digging is required here. The other email referring to “coach” is definitely Sandusky. A good attorney will want to see the entire email string to ensure that the conversation did not change mid stream. That happens. Freeh should have known that and should have supported his conclusion with the entire email string.

      (11) Freeh had to be as strong-worded as possible to support his healthy pay-day and the strong recommendations he was making.

      (12) I do believe that the Joe-side of this story has to be less combative and more fact-driven. People believe strongly about both sides of this story, but we need to keep in mind that there are damning facts toward PSU. We have to address fairly that there is an email pointing to Paterno’s knowledge of something in 1998, and then ask “what?”. You can’t just say, it wasn’t him because he was never referred to as “coach” and because the law required him not to know. Those are good points but also not conclusive or exculpatory.

      (13) I see the “logic fail” as being that we still need to wait until the end of the S/C/S trials, wait until after the football season, and after more people sit down for interviews. I think some more information will come from the civil suits as well.

      (14) The domino assertion cuts both ways.

      (15) “There still is a reasonable doubt to the argument that Joe knew what was going on and was willfully negligent. Can we just not lose sight of that? He will never be convicted and isn’t around to defend himself.” – I think this is sum of all sums. The media really lost sight of that.

      (16) “The media is not constructed to handle a story as complex as this’, says this video’s author. Considering this work product, neither are you Mr Zieglar.” – Give him a chance, he is trying to raise funds for a full-throated documentary.

      (17) Not everything is ‘straws’.

      I’d like to see a FRONTLINE style documentary on this, including hard interviews with the BOT, Emmert, the Paterno Family, Victims, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Police, Prosecutors, Corbett, DPW, CYS, etc. I truly do believe that Frontline will do something with this because the lessons we all learned from this horrible tragedy and the failure of leadership in the aftermath is worthy of serious reflection for the future.

      • The strength in their case vis a vis victim 2 might be shown in the 4 conviction (1 felony) regarding that shower incident

        And Joe Pa, by his own testimony was made away of a sex crime against a child, did not call the police, and did not inform anyone until the next day. The best thing you can say about these action is “willfully negligent”

      • Fred Nailo

        Uh, yeah that’s part of my post… was there something you wanted to reply to?

      • Fred Nailo

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

        Amendola is completely prejudiced in every way bc he still represents Sandusky. Victim#2 or his lawyer are nowhere to be heard from.

        It may be rash to call McQueary a liar but what was the entire interview of Andrew Pitz for? To discredit McQ as a human being.

        I don’t think it is a stretch to include anal rap in the presentment bc it is reasonable to suspect and accuse Sandusky of just that.

        Not everything is straws but it only takes one to make it appear like they are really reaching.

        Ziegler presents all this as a conclusive argument and it is far from it.

  • This is the film’s producer John Ziegler. Here is the body of an email I sent to this writer in response to this article after I congratulated him on perhaps the worst example of media malpractice that has ever been written about me.


    First, how do you write an article like that without even bothering to speak to me? That alone is outrageously bad reporting. Unfortunately, that is the tip of the iceberg.

    Here is a short list of your screw ups…

    You start with a rather bizarrely ironic point which could have been plagiarized from a column I (a supposed right wing nut) wrote for the Huffington Post the night Obama got reelected and which was posted at the very top of the home page entitled “Why the Conservative Media Got it so Wrong.”

    A simple google search would have revealed that, but that might have taken a few seconds of effort. The great irony here is that you are the one in the “bubble” on this issue.

    As for the content of the movie in your column….

    I never use the word nor do I or any one else come close to alleging a “conspiracy” as you charge. A simple look at our website or an email to me would have made that very clear.

    You falsely claim that we never explain why the press railroaded Paterno. That is absurd. We make it clear that the narrative they created was one that was simple, exciting, and good for ratings.

    You claim several times in your column that our position is that the “biggest tragedy” in all of this was Paterno’s firing. We never say or imply that at all. Contrary to your presumption of guilt (without actual evidence), it is quite possible to condemn a crime and defend those were not at all involved. As a liberal, I would think you would applaud simply due process and presumption of innocence.

    You claim that I “yell” at “various reporters.” I only confront one reporter in the film.

    You clearly don’t know the facts of the Bernie Fine case. He was not exonerated. Just Google the comments of the DA in the case. This was a stature of limitations situation. Interesting that you want there to be a presumption of innocence for the actual pedophile there, but not for those not even accused of molesting anyone at Penn State. Amazing.

    You claim that the film is “not close to accurate” and uses “questionable facts,” and yet you do not even allege (because you can’t) even one factual error in the movie.

    You claim that Lubrano’s theory of how Paterno came to testify as he did was not backed up by a “shred of evidence” and yet (despite that it was proposed as a logical/plausible theory to explain the known the facts and not as something which had been “proven”) you completely ignore the comments of Gary Gray who spoke to Paterno about this subject just before he died. I can assure you there is more evidence to back this theory up that we are saving for the full film.

    You falsely claim that we provide no evidence that the Freeh Report was inaccurate. Did you not watch the full movie? We go into great detail about the flaws in his assumptions about the 1998 investigation and the fact that his cover up premise simply makes no sense based on the know facts of the case. But again, this is not the final product. The full movie would go into greater detail.

    The most stunning flaw in your analysis is that you presume guilt and so therefore you conclude that any defense in inherently “contemptible.” This dangerous circular argument runs throughout your hit piece but is best exposed when you falsely claim that we have no anger towards the the child molestation which went “unchecked” by Penn State. But what if they simply didn’t know that was actually what happened Stephan? I realize that in your media “bubble” that such a concept is preposterous (and would require far too much courage to examine), but the facts indicate that this is a distinct possibility.

    I have no doubt that you will not respond to this, but you are the one who should be ashamed here. The facts (which as someone who has spoken to more of the particulars in this case then Louis Freeh did, I know far better than you) will eventually come out and, assuming you are capable of it (I doubt it) I will be happy to accept your apology.

    John Ziegler

    • Robert Inverso

      Outstanding! I am not a Penn State Grad, I actually grew up in Michigan as a Penn State fan, Started watching them when I was about 7 with my dad. After 40+ years of watching and closely following Paterno and Penn State football, I cannot for one minute believe Paterno covered this up… I have asked so many of these knuckleheads, “what bad publicity would they have been afraid of for turning in an ex-football coach for abusing children” not one has come back with an answer….

      • Here is an answer, they had a serial pedophile on campus in an emeritus role on campus, there had just been a second assault on the college grounds. And the first on provoked an investigation. The question on how he got the status, and was allowed to bring children on campus after that investigation would have been very embarrassing.

        • ShariWilsonHughes

          TSM was aware of the investigation. CYS and DPW were involved. Sandusky was cleared of charges. How is the university responsible for allowing Sandusky free reign? Put your questions to better use. Ask why these agencies did not stop him in the first place.

          • The Penn State is reponsible because after this incident the gave him emeritus status, an office on campus and allowed him to bring children on campus grounds. One of the PSU Police detectives investigating testified that he told Sandusky is was wrong to shower with children and to stop after 1998. He admitted giving bear hugs to minors in the shower in 1998 and still got this status? You dont think there would have been questions about the first 1998 incident after the second incident in 2001.

            And then why does the 2001 incident provoke less investigation than the 1998 one. Why are the police not involved at all

          • ShariWilsonHughes

            Again, who was ultimately responsible for Sandusky’s actions? TSM was responsible for those children and Sandusky’s ability to be alone with them. Why is TSM being left off of the hook in all of this?

          • Investigate and Indict and criticize them and all other involved with this all you like. But PSU has its fair share of the blame as well. They didnt report him and some later covered for him and that led to more victims after 2001

          • ShariWilsonHughes

            Has to be the worst “cover up” in history then. Why would Paterno have not told MM to keep his mouth shut? And, why would the incident have been reported to CYS?

          • Thats because it wasn’t reported to anyone in 2001

          • ShariWilsonHughes

            If people were as concerned about the welfare of the children as they say they are, then they should be demanding a full investigation into the handling of the Sandusky case. Let the chips fall where they may, but we deserve to know the full truth to assure us that nothing like this will ever happen in the state of Pennsylvania again.

          • ShariWilsonHughes

            The 2001 incident was reported to CYS. If everybody is concerned about the welfare of children, you should be questioning why nothing was done by gov’t agencies. How many pedophiles were left to roam in PA? Was Sandusky the only one?

          • CYS was never informed of the 2001 incident. Where did you get such false information?

          • Robert Inverso

            Ok, lets get this straight for those of you that are just plain ignorant… in 1998 after the police, DA, Child welfare and Service found Sandusky had did nothing wrong, even if they told PSU officials about the entire investigation, top to bottom, they could do NOTHING to Sandusky. He was accused of something and the proper authorities investigated it and CLEARED HIM! So what cause would they have for stopping the retirement package that they were already working on for him? PSU and Sandusky were already discussing his retirement before the 1998 incident.

          • It appears that we are not the ones ignorant as you are actually not answering the question of why this is bad publicity. It has nothing to do with the granting of his retirement package. In what alternate universe is this situation not “Bad Publicity”

          • Robert Inverso

            Ok, Charles, bad enough publicity to put put the entire school in jeopardy with a cover up? Nice try. First off, there was no “we gave Sandusky all this for a retirement package so he would stay quite, now we have to protect ourselves by protecting him..” Never happened, so I very much doubt that would be the Bad publicity. You seem to base your premise on the fact that since 1998, all three knew that Sandusky was a child molester, where there is nothing farther from the truth. I will concede, that if they knew he was abusing kids since 1998, then yes they might cover up or even stall an investigation… but they didn’t. So without the proof that Sandusky was a pedophile in 1998, your bad publicity doesn’t old water.

          • Robert Inverso

            Charles, what don’t you get about the 1998 investigation being done TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?

            Why are you so quick to assume they should have known about the 1998 police/Child Services/DA investigation that was reported to the POLICE?

            Investigations involving minors are kept pretty confidential. Of course they were trying to get information that Sandusky was being investigated, but according tot he emails Freeh had, it didn’t look like they had a lot, which would be pretty consistent with a police run investigation.

            If you were being investigated for something, would you want the police talking to your employer about it? Especially if it had nothing to do with them since the mother reported it.

            After they did not charge him, what could Penn State do? Here is how your story pans out in a different case… no kidding, you tell me if I am wrong…

            You get pulled over driving drunk from your company Christmas Party, your drunk as hell, but the police screw up and cannot charge you, but tell you, don’t drink and drive again. They don’t inform your boss, but your boss knows about it.. One, what are you going to do if they terminate you or do anything at all to you for being accused of drunk driving, but not charged?

            I bet I can answer that, you would have a lawyer suing them in a heartbeat.

            Same holds true for Sandusky and PSU in 1998, they could not do a thing to him. You would love to be able to say, well it involved a child being abused… well sorry, as bad as it is, it doesn’t matter.. they did not have a leg to stand on to do a thing about it.

            So for all intent and purposes, get off the 1998 incident, PSU had and could do NOTHING about it!
            Now for 2001, you love to bring up the 1998 incident, do you realize that no one has come forth with what any of the PSU Officials were told about the 1998 incident? True. look it up. and if it was such a horrible and vicious incident, the Child Welfare investigator said he didn’t even remember it…

            Bottom line is this, no way Paterno led an active cover up for Sandusky in 2001 to avoid bad publicity. It’s just not there.

            Where is the outcry for the head of the Second Mile Director, it ANYONE is to be held accountable for not reporting second hand information it is him… Sandusky worked for him and that is where he was getting his victims, he wasn’t getting his victims from the Penn State Football Program, he was getting his victims from the Second Mile, and what did he do, Nothing at all.

          • How do I know they knew. The emails they wrote each other about the progress of the investigation in 1998 that is how we know. You may want to check your facts before making such obvious false statements

            And you example makes even less sense. How does that have any bearing on the fact that in light of the 1998 investigation not one called the cops to investigate. So with a second incident with an eyewitness there was less investigation. There is no excuse for their inaction in 2001. There were no police involved whatsoever

            Joe Pa turned his back on a child in 2001 when he had a chance. Others are at fault as well, but he has his own share

          • 91PSU

            Pennsylvania law PA Title 55, Sec. 3490.91 and 3490.102 prohibits PSU as his employer in 1998 to know anything about the investigation.

          • I suggest you read the email of June 9, 1998 which shows that all three of them: Spanier, Curley and Shultz knew of the 1998 investigation as it was proceeding. So to say otherwise is false.

        • Robert Inverso

          Charles, Freeh and emails (actual proof) stated that Sandusky’s retirement and package were in the works before the 1998 incident. According to the Police, DA and child services, 1998 was not a sexual assault of any kind. so your logic does not make any sense. You are assuming that they knew he was a child molester back in 2001.. sorry to break your bubble, but they didn’t have the knowledge and facts we have today on Sandusky…

          • Your supposition is invalidated by the facts. One of the first things Shultz did after being informed of the 2001 incident was to inquire as to the flies on the 1998 incident, and to talk to the lawyer about the reporting of sexual abuse.

            How do you explain Spanier saying that Sandusky needed to get professional help if they did not suspect, why did Shultz and Curley talk about banning Sandusky from bringing children on campus.

            And again the downside, trying to explain how a man who had to be told not to shower with children by the police in 1998, got emeritus status, an office on campus and allowed to bring children on campus AFTER the investigation. That is not good publicity

          • Robert Inverso

            Ok, there again, if he had the files from 1998, they would have pretty much read as follows, “After Police, Child Services and Welfare, and DA investigate Mother and child’s complaint of Sandusky showering with said child, we were told it is not a crime and he should not be allowed to shower with children…” Did you ever seem to think that maybe in 1998 they were not told the facts of the case and just got pieces of it like they said? That would make a lot more sense why Schultz would have went looking for a file on it to see how the exact same thing was handled in 1998.

          • You are avoiding the original point as to how this would be bad publicity. Again, someone with the priveleges emeritus status again charged with a crime against a child. And here he is showering with kids again. In what alternate universe is this not bad publicity

            And your answer makes no sense on another level. If Schultz was just seeing how it was handled before, then why, with an eyewitness this time, was the police and Child Welfare not called. So with more evidence, there is less investigation? Especially since this is the second accusation?

          • Billyboy172

            Chuck. If you want to blame someone blame CYS and DPW for their half assed investigation in 1998 where THEY covered it up to protect the cash cow that JS was providing through second mile trustees. Lauro is a liar he didn’t know about the Chambers evaluation. A complaint has been filed with the PA task force on child abuse about the 1998 investigation and I have seen it and the proof Lauro is a liar. The complaint was filed by a Republican PA representative. So get off this they knew. It is true it was against the law for Curly, Spanier and Joe to be informed of the details. The e-mails Shulz sent are watered down and don’t really say anything about the investigation other than references to when counselors would be interviewing.

          • As I have said numerous times before. Lay out the blame for all you deserve it. But more blame does not exonerate others. You still do not seem to have an answer for why with more evidence there was no informing of the Police or Child Welfare. Or why Spanier wanted to have Sandusky get professional help, yet did not report, or the same for Curly or Shultz who also knew of the 2001, Those officials at Penn State will have to answer at the trial. And it does not matter about whether it was or was not against the law. The emails in 1998 show they knew of the investigation, and the email of 2001 show they knew of the shower incident. There not reporting this to the authorities is reprehensible, and inexcusable

          • No you do not seem to understand a basic fact. Joe reported to Shulz and Curly. Shulz was more that a VP of Finance and was head of campus police. Like I told you in another answer Shulz was the one getting updates from Harmon in 1998 so that proves he was head of campus police in 2001. Your whole premise is based on what McQuery told Joe, Curly and Shulz.. Curly in his preGJ interview said he informed Joe of the outcome of 2001. What has Curly maintained throughout? That he was told it was horseplay so that is most likely what he told Joe. But as Joe followed up with McQuery several months later and asked him if he was OK with how it turned out. MM said he was fine and OK. If you think Joe would have not gone further if MM said “No I don’t think it was handled properly” then you are fooling yourself. What I can’t fathom is how everybody believes MM, who has changed his story at least 3 times over Dranov, a family friend, CUrly, Shulz and Paterno. That’s 4 against one. Many prosecutors have said those e-mails are worthless as evidence until we hear the testimony of Curly, Shulz and Spanier. By the way if you believe Shulz was not head of the Camus police why did Harmon keep him informed in 1998? And if Shulz wasn’t in 2001 please tell who was.

            And here is Franco’s recent interview with Bob Costas. Costas now has his doubts about this affair being acoverup.


          • Robert Inverso

            Oh, and I never once said they didn’t suspect him of being one after the second incident, and why couldn’t he be granted that status after being found not guilty of anything?

    • Fred Nailo

      Amendola’s appearance ALONE kills the credibility of this ‘mini-movie’. By giving Sandusky a presumption of innocence in the McQueary case AFTER he has already been convicted is nothing less than INSANE.

      McQueary doesn’t have a chance to defend himself after your hit piece repeatedly questions his character. You might need a good lawyer before this is over.

      I fear that this hack job of a video will further pressure the public to take extreme positions about the guilt or innocence of Paterno based on FAILED logic.

      The TRUTH is that all the facts aren’t in. That’s about it.

    • Mike4949

      Dear John,

      Yeah, it’s me Mike. Here’s the bottom line (and even the top line)! You have resisted acknowledging that JoePa’s calculatingly, cunningly, purposefully abandoned that kid in Shower 2001. All your hyperbole of a media gone wild is totally and completely irrelevant to that fact of abandonment.

      The outrage remains unabated! And the millions of people across this nation who have felt his act so contemptible are represented by the mothers and fathers who recognized that could have been their very own kid assaulted and abandoned . And they recognized there were men who were in the position to do the right thing, but didn’t do the right thing. Unconscionable!

      • Schmutzie

        Mike- It’s all about the media using Paterno to get ratings. He would explain further, but you’ll just have to wait until his full movie comes out. Priceless. Dear lord, I guess self-awareness isn’t in his vocabulary either. As Wallace pointed out in “Host”, sometimes Ziegler says things that even he’s not sure he believes himself. He’s a huckster who is playing Paterno loyalists the same way he played Palin fans. 99% of everyone familiar with the case has drawn their conclusion that Paterno was guilty of inaction, of not caring about Sandusky’s victims, of placing the football program and his own glory above the safety of children. But, that tells Ziegler that 1% out there will agree with him , attend his low-budget shlockumentary, and will make him some cash. Make no mistake about it, John Ziegler doesn’t care about Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Mike McQueary, or any of the children who were victimized by Sandusky. He cares about one person, and that is John Ziegler. Consummate huckster, carnival barker, and manipulator of the feeble-minded. Contemptible is the word. If there is a more despicable bit-player in the Penn State scandal than John Ziegler I have yet to see him.

        • Mike4949

          Wow Schumtzie, I just don’t believe Ziegler is doing this for remuneration or recognition. I do believe that he started out with the premise that JoePa was innocent of any wrong doing. Not good! I on the other hand, started out with letting the evidence, both circumstantial and direct lead me to the truth. And when I have countered John with facts that in-authenticate his, he has grudgingly walked away without any retort. It was then that I discovered he has never read the Presentment nor the Preliminary Hearing report word for word!

          And what was also revealing was when I pointed out the many self serving, set up flaws in the famous survey he conducted, he agreed the survey should have been rewritten in a more fair, honest way.

          • Fred Nailo

            Thanks for the heads-up, Mike. I was hoping Mr Ziegler was ready for an honest discussion.

            I won’t hold my breath.

          • Schmutzie

            He never read the grand jury presentment or the preliminary hearing report? Why am I not surprised?

            Don’t kid yourself Mike.

            If you think Ziegler is actually a “truthseeker” and not a shameless
            huckster, out for self-promotion (and therefore financial gain), you
            likely haven’t studied his career path.(that’s to your credit)

            Outside of reading something by David Foster Wallace on Ziegler, years
            ago, I was blissfully unaware that he even existed in the public
            consciousness anymore, until the Sandusky Scandal erupted last year.

            And then, there he was with his T-Shirts and his FramingPaterno website and his mini-movie on YouTube.

            Do yourself a favor, and read the late, great, Wallace’s analysis of Ziegler in The Atlantic, entitled “Host.” (link below)

            Simply put, Ziegler is a moth drawn to the media lights he claims to
            despise. He’s a guy who has made a “career” out of slamming the media,
            while at the same time (as you can see in his reply to Silver) pointing
            out his own media contributions. (“Hey look, I was at the top of the
            page at Huffington!!”)

            His Twitter bio starts off like this
            “Truthseeker, Conservative filmmaker, TV Commentator, Columnist, Author,
            Talk Show Host,”- Okay? This is a guy who decries the media? He’s part
            of the media!. He’s always been part of the media. His only problem is
            that his shtick gets old fast and he has to move on to a new bit. (Now
            he’s angry that Pulitzer Prize winner Sara Ganim has gotten a job with

            Tweets the huckster- “peter principle at
            work. At least on TV she is in a place where facts/truth matters even
            less than in local papers.”

            His LA talk-radio days were all about OJ. He lost that gig. His bit got old.

            Then he moved on to Palin (and oh my God if you want to read some funny
            stuff, Google Ziegler-Palin).

            His grudge against Katie Couric is
            pathetic, and yet oddly humorous. She, Katie Couric, is to blame for
            Sarah Palin’s public image as an airhead according to Mr. Z.

            There are YouTube vids of this clown trying to crash a journalism award ceremony at USC, where Couric was the recipient, and in which Ziegler winds up being handcuffed and led away by security. His shrill whining that he
            didn’t do anything wrong is just sensational.

            But the OJ stuff and the Palin stuff are behind him.

            Now it’s Paterno. (note his need to
            raise $100K for the full length version of this low-budget YouTube

            He finds a story that the American
            people are drawn to, and gloms onto it like a lamprey. But,since there’s
            no $ in repeating what everyone else is saying, ie Palin is stupid, Paterno was negligent (at best, complicit at worst), Ziegler goes for the counterpoint. He knows that there’s never 100% consensus on anything, so he takes the “Palin is birilliant”- “Paterno was
            railroaded” side of the story and plays to the small but passionate audience who agree that Palin was a genius and that Paterno was a victim.

            Twas the media that was to blame for Palin’s fall and Obama’s rise. “Go watch my movie-Media Malpractice- to learn why!”

            He thinks people are all morons who believe everything they read, see, hear, on TV/Radio/Print, and therefore if the
            media presents a story in a way that disagrees with Ziegler’s self-constructed “truth”, they’re all lying. They’re all out for ratings. Truth doesn’t matter anymore!! Follow John Ziegler if you want to know the real truth!!! He’s a complete clown.

            Ask yourself this….How does John Ziegler make a living? The answer is rather obvious; he makes his money by talking, by expressing opinions (albeit
            badly in both cases.) He makes his living by marketing himself. The very
            definition of a huckster. His Twitter timeline is an absolute laugh

            In response to Silver’s movie review, Ziegler tells his 1200 or so
            followers that ” I have already written extensive/scathing response to

            Apparently besides “shameless”-“embarrassed”-and
            “self-awareness”_– “scathing” is another word The Zigman needs to have explained. His “scathing” response to Silver is essentially “You never called me. Your piece is wrong. We did prove the Freeh Report is
            inaccurate because I said so. You’re the one who lives in a bubble. So
            there!”- It’s standard Ziegler shtick.

            I know of several PSU supporters, angry over the NCAA sanctions, who have said that “Ziegler is not the guy we want for an advocate.”- Gee, ya think?

            Look, here’s all you need to know about Ziegler’s latest “media bad guy”
            crusade…He claims that the evil media (of which he is a part) has
            jumped to a false conclusion that Joe Paterno knew something about
            Sandusky back in 1998, or perhaps 2001 depending on which evil media
            we’re talking about.

            He parses phrases from the Freeh Report so that they fit his (preconceived) narrative that Paterno was guiltless in the Sandusky Scandal. ie- Joe didn’t know exactly what McQueary saw. Joe might (!!!) have been coached before testifying to the grand jury because he was an old man with a failing memory, McQueary had his dates wrong, McQueary never said “anal rape” (just plain old simple inappropriate sexual contact with a child?), ….he bends over backwards trying to find a way to show that Paterno might have known nothing. He actually attacks the whistleblower, Mike McQueary!! The one guy who had the guts to step forward, and say something is going on between Jerry Sandusky and children, right here on Penn State’s campus— and Ziegler
            tries to impeach his character by quoting some knucklehead who lost
            some playing time. He suggests that since McQueary didn’t say “anal rape” to Paterno, that somehow McQ’s whole role in the case is tainted. Never mind
            that McQueary turned out to be exactly correct, and that Jerry Sandusky
            was molesting children on campus at PSU, he “had his dates wrong and he
            changed his story.”- There’s a very strong possibility that Joe Paterno
            was made a fall guy here, and was really completely free of guilt. Joe’s
            own grand jury testimony? Never mind that, Mike McQueary had his dates
            wrong. Paterno’s decade of silence? Never mind that, Joe never heard the
            words “anal rape” and he didn’t even know what sodomy is.

            Gotta find a way, any way, for Paterno to come out squeaky clean so that Ziegler can continue his carnival barker routine.

            If you read Wallace’s piece on Ziegler, you’ll read about a little trouble Zigman got into back in the OJ days. What did Zigman say? Here, I’ll just Cut-Paste the final part of Wallace’s piece….

            –“And when someone in the arc of chairs around John Ziegler says, almost
            to himself, that the one pure thing to hope for here is that Simpson’s
            kids believe he’s innocent, Mr. Z. gives a snort of reply and states, very flatly, “They know, and he knows they know, that he did it.” To which, in KFI’s prep room, the best response would probably be compassion, empathy. Because one can almost feel it: what a bleak and merciless world this host lives in—believes, nay, knows for an absolute fact he lives in. I’ll take doubt.”–

            Okay? OJ Simpson’s kids, his KIDS!!!, knew that OJ killed Nicole & Ron Goldman, of that Ziegler had zero doubt!!

            But in Ziegler’s interpretation of the Sandusky Scandal, it’s really quite
            possible that Joe Paterno, the overseer of PSU’s entire football program, the Lord Of Happy Valley, didn’t have a clue that his pal of 33 years (“They weren’t pals!!!” cries an incredulous Ziegler, quoting fellow Paterno apologist Joe Posnanski) …was a child molester.

            Don’t think for one second that John Ziegler is in on this Sandusky Scandal
            because he cares one bit about Sandusky’s victims, about Joe Paterno’s legacy, about Penn State
            University, or anyone connected to either. He’s trying to make himself
            part of the story, because that’s what he does. That’s how he makes a
            living. He’s a contemptible huckster.


    • Mr. Ziegler,

      As this was a review of your film, I am not sure as to why you are requiring Mr. Silver to have contacted you before he began writing. Do you think that he should also discuss things with Spielberg, the Wachowskis or Sam Mendes before writing about their recent films as well?

    • Bravo John! As you keep pointing out, it’s simpler to follow the media narrative than to actually do the work and find the facts. This article is contemptable as a work of “journalism” so I’m sure no reason will prevail with this author. Taking note of his name. Hope he never trys to sell any of his BS. Did he even watch the video?? Thanks for your perseverance.

    • The Dog

      The Zeigler’s are the most uppity a$$holes you’d ever want to meet. I went to school with John’s brother Bob at HGP. John and Bob’s dad left their mom for ANOTHER MAN and they have been trying to cover that up ever since. The Freeh report says it all. Freeh had no bone to pick and laid out all of the facts unlike this 2-bit Limbaugh wannabe. Someone should ask him to interview his dad on his talk show!

  • Robert Inverso

    Oh, last thing… oh great wise one…. why can’t people still feel for the victims and care about what happened to them, yet also feel anger at what has happened to Paterno, you make it sound like it is just not possible… let me clear it up for you cupcake… you can’t feel for the victims and care what happened to them, if you defend SANDUSKY!

    Want to get me started on Corbett? Here is a piece of work that collected campaign money from PSU Alumni and the Second Mile for three years while running for office, the entire time knowing that Sandusky was under investigation for abusing children! He halted the investigation to the point that Victim #1 almost committed SUICIDE! He never even said anything to Second Mile so they could halt his access to kids. So here is the story for you IF McQueary went directly to the police, AND even if they found the boy that Sandusky was molesting, AND the boy said Sandusky was molesting him… Corbett would have still waited three years to even bring in Sandusky and talk to him.. because Victim #1 who started Sandusky’s ball rolling down hill, he was the victim, not a witness or in Paterno’s case someone reporting second hand information, Corbett had a VICTIM to testify and waited three years… how long would he have had to wait if he only had a witness and someone reporting second hand information? 6? 8? 10 years?

    • remembervictims

      Again, the good citizens of PA need to be going after Corbett as vehemently as they are trying to salvage the unsalvageable reputation of their fallen hero, JoePed. Corbett’s probably complicity, however, again, does not exonerate JoePoo’s cowardly actions.

      • Robert Inverso

        OK rememberthevictims, you seem so convinced this happened, maybe you, since no one else with your same opinion has been able to answer this simple question… What were they afraid of it they turned in the ex-football coach for child molestation? What bad publicity or backlash would they have had to endure? They would have been commended and praised as heroes! So why did they cover this up? You would rather destroy the name and believe the bad about someone who put 60 years into the same institution and did so much good, than believe the possibility that maybe McQuery is not being 100% truthful or may have “exaggerated” a bit to help the DA’s case against Sandusky, since it had been stalled for what three years? So don’t run with your tail between your legs, answer the question since you have all the answers.

        • They would have to explain why, after an investigation where the ex coach admitted giving bear hugs to children in the shower, and where they told him to stop, he was granted emeritus status, given and office, and allowed to bring children on the campus.

          And they knew it was a cover up. As Spanier said when they emailed about not going to the outside authorities

          “The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

          Sounds like a coverup to a lot of folks

          • Robert Inverso

            Charles, again, someone getting their facts wrong.. he was a coach in 1998 when he admitted giving bear hugs, and was told by the POLICE to stop during THEIR investigation.. not PSU’s. The discussion about him not ever being head coach and retiring started BEFORE the 1998 investigation. The Freeh Report even states that even though unusual, the granting of emeritus status was involved with the 1998 investigation. If you care to be informed, start at pg 55 of the Freeh report and he will quote the emails etc..

          • The officer that told them was list as Penn State Police officer. And though the granting of Emeritus status was not involved with the investigation the questions would have come up as to why he got this status after all this came up. Not as a reward for leaving, but why such a person got those privileges after the investigation. So my facts actually seem to be correct, and the scenario for downside seems plausible

            I note that you do not comment on the email from Spanier. How is this not a smoking gun for a cover up. Or can you not “inform” me about it

        • remembervictims

          Obviously I don’t “run with my tail behind my legs” or I wouldn’t be on this thread. But I, unlike the PSU administrators, staff and janitors, etc. did not run when I suspected a 6′-7″ pedophile. Largely due to my actions, this pedophile has now been formally charged with two counts each of 1st Degree Sodomy and 1st Degree Sexual Abuse of a ten-year-old little boy. JoePoo could have done this much easier than I.

      • Robert Inverso

        Again, a POS..

  • Arthur_game

    Paterno apologists will be forever stuck with his seven minutes of testimony before the Grand Jury. With just those answers to questions from the prosecutor, without cross examination, no one will ever really know what else Paterno did other than properly reporting the incident to not only to his boss but also the head of the police force. You are correct that what happened to Mr. Paterno is so insignificant in comparison to what happened to Sandusky’s victims, but it is pure opinion to associate a lack of empathy to interviewees who are presented in a mini-trailer. It goes without saying that everyone feels terrible for the victims. At the same time, considerable questions abound regarding the Freeh Report and the media onslaught that made this entire tragedy a Paterno/PSU scandal as opposed to a Sandusky/Second-Mile scandal, an onslaught that led to unprecedented and unauthorized NCAA sanctions and a Board that was surprisingly ill-equipped to handle the frenzy. For some reason, investigative journalism has been lost in a sea of regurgitating newspaper website bloggers. Even if Paterno bears a brunt of the blame, no one for a second, in the MSM, has questioned the glaring inconsistencies between the Freeh Report and the actual evidence and testimony presented in the various criminal proceedings. No one in the MSM has pointed out the numerous pivotal individuals, more pivotal than Paterno, who have yet to go on the record, including officers at the Second Mile, representatives of child reporting agencies, and police officers – all of whom were not interviewed by the Freeh Group. No one ever sought to ask the over-arching question which is presumed to implicate Paterno and PSU: where is there any evidence of a cover up? Can earnest god fearing individuals make mistakes? Yes. Should they lose their jobs for those mistakes? Yes. Should they be defenselessly proclaimed responsible for a decade long predation of minors? Absolutely not. And yet, even further down that wormhole of real investigative journalism, no one ever sought to ask: if it is presumed that there was a cover-up, why would four to five to six to ten well respected individuals do such a thing? Because of publicity? Come on! It would have benefitted those individuals to have Sandusky arrested, not the opposite. The next question is then, if both are solved, how? How would Joe Paterno pull a massive cover-up to protect a known child predator in the face of mounting evidence over accessible email channels, multiple witnesses, victims who could at any time report immediately to the police, and then what is more bizarre to that line of illogic go in and testify and basically support the prosecution’s case? Call me when you can answer those questions. Finally, to suggest that Paterno could just unilaterally demand an arrest, unfortunately, shows your lack of skill and intellect for many reasons which also go without necessitating an explanation.

    • remembervictims

      Everything you have said has been clearly refuted in posts above and elsewhere and your babble has been repeated over and over again ad nauseum.

      • Arthur_game

        Please explain, point by point.

  • Andy

    I think the jury’s still out on Paterno’s culpability in all of this (literally, there are going to be, like, trials and stuff). But the argument that the Freeh report “eliminated” doubt on this issue is laughable. The Freeh report is not compelling as a legal document, not at all. To cite it peremptorily as this kind of debate-ending final word is to, in the words of the immortal Christopher Hitchens, show the terrible quality of having never read any of the arguments against your position ever. Also, you could do to cut back on the epithets and name-calling, it weakens your position and makes you look like kind of a hack.

  • Andy

    You’d think a guy responsible for posts like this – – would be a little more humble in his positions. Because, like, in the last two weeks he’s looked like a jerk who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, LOLOLZZZ. With the benefit of hindsight right?

  • Mike4949

    Robert Inverso and Marianne Kelly! Where art thou?

  • Mike4949

    Robert Inverso and Marianne Kelly!
    Where art thou?

  • remembervictims

    Thanks, for one of the most sensible and rational articles written on the subject!

    • Robert Inverso

      Blinded by the light…

  • remembervictims

    SAS, sorry you feel that all who disagree with you are “stupid” (aren’t you the articulate one!). However, to clarify that point I have two immediate family members who are members of MENSA and I, myself, qualify, but have not joined. As to being a “Joe—” hater, is that the best you can come up with? Just what is it that your darling Joe— did to cause him to be the focus of such hatred? Sorry, but I have a lot better things to spend my valuable time on than hating such a non-entity as your Joe—. I do, however, intensely hate the crime of pedophilia and consider enablers to be as guilty as the perpetrator.

    • SAS

      Well, I didn’t know I was dealing with such a genius. Thank you for giving your credentials because up until now you have done a pretty good job of keeping your intelligence under wraps. BTW, I did not say you were stupid, I said your comment was stupid. Of course, blind rage can make even the relative of a MENSA member seem foolish.
      Joe Paterno was a good man. He lived a life of integrity. He was also a flawed person as we all are. People who cannot hold a candle to his level of integrity feel the need to point out imperfections in his record in order to try to tear the man down. of course, he is dead and cannot defend himself. However, so many of those he touched are working to protect his legacy.

    • Robert Inverso

      So quit wasting your time here and go way….

  • Steve, read the attached. Maybe this is why this group is pushing back on the disgustingly lazy “media” which you seem so proud to be part of. People like you are just as much at fault as the rest of those mentioned in this book review. You refuse to do the work, and you are simply to afraid at what you might find. Perhaps if the almighty media put more effort into the facts and less into the righteous indignation aimed at others, we might actually make a dent in crimes like those committed by the Sandusky’s of the world.

  • ShariWilsonHughes

    Every taxpayer, parent and grandparent in PA should be furious and demanding answers concerning the handling of the Sandusky case. The weight of public outrage has been placed on the shoulders of a football coach and university administrators who were not trained to handle such situations. Where is the outrage for TSM, DPW, and CYS? Why was Sandusky still on the streets after 1998? Instead of taking the time trying to discredit those seeking the whole truth, why not focus on exposing the failures of those who actually had the power to stop Sandusky’s reign of terror?

    • Fred Nailo

      I agree with every word you are saying here EXCEPT that you are suggesting that we should accept any haphazard attempt to change the narrative.

      Sandusky has already been convicted and this hack job of a movie attempts to reopen the case by discrediting Mike McQueary in any way possible.

      Yes, this case is far from over and in the end we may find out that Joe knew nothing or that Joe knew everything or that Joe was railroaded or that we will never know.

      In the meantime, the crusade to legitimize this farce does little more than make Penn Staters seem like zealots who aren’t interested in the truth at all.

      • ShariWilsonHughes

        MM’s statements have fluctuated from telling Dr. Dranov that he did not see a sexual assault to saying that he did see a sexual assault in court. Just wondering why you think that questioning the reasons for his changes in narrative is not an important part of the puzzle? Why did his story change? Personally, I think that the media should be more concerned with why the situation ever even had a chance to involve Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Sandusky should have been stopped prior to the 2001 incident. Why would TSM allow him to continue to work with children unsupervised AFTER he was suspected of child abuse? Where was the concern for the children then? We, as parents, deserve to know the answers. If Sandusky was permitted to continue along his path of destruction, how many other pedophiles were permitted to do the same. This IS about the welfare of the children.

        • ShariWilsonHughes

          I dare Mr. Silver to start asking these questions.

        • Fred Nailo

          I think MM was seriously mental about what he saw and that accounts for any discrepancies in his testimony.

          I agree with your 2nd point about 1998 and believe the real villains were in the power structure of TSM which overlapped with PSU and had ties within state government.

  • Billyboy172

    I’m sick and tired of this lame “Joeapologist” moniker BS. No one is apologizing, just seeking the truth. And none of us have forgotten the victims. But you know what the victims have said to quit bringing them up in this. If all you people who think Joe was complicit just read Curly’s pre GJ interview report. He says he told Joe the outcome of the inquiry. What has Curly maintained in all his testimony? It was horseplay. So any person with an once of common sense would logically conclude Joe was told it turned out to be horseplay and we are telling 2nd mile and telling JS not to bring kids on campus anymore. His testimony is followed by “I don’t know what you would call it”.

    Please define what “Sexual Nature” is. What was JS doing? He was performing sodomy so that isn’t a correct answer

    Please define what JS was doing to be fondling.


    His testimony is followed by “I don’t know what you would call it”.

    And all of them said they wanted help in refreshing their memory but the lying unethical bitch Baldwin told them not to discuss it. Now I know all you mental giants out there can remember every conversation from 10 years ago especially if it was described as horseplay.

    “in hindsight…” is not an admission of guilt.

    I wish Fred Nallo and remembervictims would actually do some homework and quit acting like there were 8 kids known to everyone in 2001. The GJ report was constructed to put 100% of the blame on PSU while giving 2nd Mile a free pass. The Trained Counselors at 2nd Mile were working with everyone one of these kids and didn’t spot anything. Yet Curly, Shulz, Paterno and Spanier who did not interact with the kids were supposed to. Here is the link on how the GJ report did construct the report to make this a PSU story and gave everyone else a free pass:

    The mindless media driven comments on here just shows the ignorance of the facts in this case and maintains the lies that have permeated this case from day one. This should have been a 2nd Mile Scandal because Raykovitz was told and 2nd mile was the mandated reporter. Now tell me I wear a tin foil hat. That is what I anticipate from the sheep.

    • Schmutzie

      So, you don’t know what the word apologist means?

      Here- I’ll grab you the definition from

      “one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something”

      See? JoePologist doesn’t describe someone who is apologizing on behalf of Paterno. It describes someone who is defending him, explaining why he didn’t do anything wrong, parsing the Freeh Report in ways that reflect favorably on Joe Paterno, attacking Mike McQueary so that he comes off looking bad and Paterno comes off looking good, directing the discussion towards other people who may be to blame, explaining Paterno’s use of the phrase “something of a sexual nature” in his grand jury testimony to mean something besides “something of a sexual nature.”

      Okay? A JoePologist is someone who defends Joe Paterno in the face of any evidence that might implicate him in the Sandusky Scandal. A JoePologist thinks that by doing nothing to stop Sandusky, that Paterno did nothing wrong. Simply put, YOU are a JoePologist. Own the name tag, you’ve earned it.

      • Billyboy172

        You don’t have a clue about this case and are a hating troll who swallows all the lies that have been out . OK smart guy find one review of the FactFreeh report by a credible attorney, former prosecutor or analyst that support its findings. You won’t find one. Go to and you’ll find about 15 links to reviews showing that the report is not worth the paper its written on. Then we have the lying Linda Kelly who set this firestorm off with the Lie “”MM saw a naked Sandusky…” which charge he was not convicted for. Then we have MM who has changed his story at least 3 times. And if you look at the pictures of the locker room and compare his view according to his testimony he couldn’t see what he says he saw. Then if you look at his 12/16 testimony and have a sixth graders understanding of human anatomy you will realize it was physically impossible for JS to be doing that. Its so ridiculous the prosecution put the mannequin representing the boy on a stool in the slide they showed the jury. Then we have a lying Cynthia Baldwin who says she wasn’t Representing Curly, Shulz and Spanier at the GJ hearing except in all the testimony when asked who is their attorney she answers in the affirmative. When they are asked who their counsel is they name her and she never denies it. That is a violation of Attorney-Client privilege or she lied to the Judge and DAG. Bottom line if she wasn’t representing them she should not have been in that GJ hearing. No an apologist defends someone who is guilty and Joe isn’t guilty except in the minds of simpletons like you who show just how ignorant you are of the facts, evidence and testimony in this case.

        Ok smart guy define what

        Sexual Nature is as it applied to JS and that boy.

        Define Fondling in that same way.

        Then explain what ” I don’t really know what you would call it.” means in that testimony.


        • Schmutzie


          “No an apologist defends someone who is guilty”

          That is incorrect. An apologist is someone who defends someone or something. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with the definition of “apologist” BillyBoy.

          You are clearly defending Joe Paterno BillyBoy, and thus, you are a Paterno apologist, or for short, a JoePologist.

          As for your perception of who is and isn’t a credible attorney, and their respective takes on the Freeh Report, you’re not being objective. Who defines what is and isn’t a “credible” attorney? You? John Ziegler? Don’t be ridiculous BillyBoy. Obviously, a credible attorney in your mind is one who disagrees with Louis Freeh’s findings, and an attorney who lacks credibility is one who agrees with Freeh.

          In other words, you lack objectivity. You are clearly biased in favor of Joe Paterno. I on the other hand am not. I never worshiped Joe Paterno, as you obviously do, nor did I hate him. Didn’t feel strongly about Joe Paterno one way or the other. That changed last November. I didn’t need the Freeh Report to draw a conclusion about Joe Paterno. All I needed were Joe Paterno’s own words to the grand jury.

          Once I learned, from Paterno, that he knew something, anything, sexual took place between Jerry Sandusky and a child in the Lasch Building showers in 2001, I made up my mind. He didn’t act honorably, he didn’t act heroically, and he didn’t take action like a true leader would have. In other words, the myth of Joe Paterno that you still cling to, was just that…a myth.

          Once the Freeh Report DID come out, and I saw CurlEy’s mention of “touching base with coach” about Sandusky in 1998, that only reinforced my opinion. (Don’t bother trying to say that “coach” was referring to Sandusky either. The email was captioned “Joe Paterno.”)

          Oh and, your suggestion that I go to Ziegler’s FramingPaterno website for links to “credible” people who disagree with the Freeh Report is laughable. You won’t find unbiased opinion at FramingPaterno. They’re all a bunch of JoePologists there too.

          • Billyboy172

            You said it yourself your mind was made up in November and the Freeh report cemented that belief. And because you can’t find a credible or even an un-credible attorney, former prosecutor, or analyst that agrees with the freeh report findings you dismiss any attorney, former prosecutor of analyst out of hand to support your weak argument. You are a person who can’t be objective because you made your mind up a long time ago. When I heard Freeh’s press conference I believed it. Until I looked at the report and evaluated it objectively, something you have lost the ability to do. Even Bob Costas is now questioning it and he believes it will be challenged which it is going to be. Just one example Freeh only interviewed 3 of the 19 people he should have and you believe its complete and fair? He supplies what everybody was thinking, doing and saying. For you to believe Freeh you have to believe that after the Campus Police, State College police, the DA’s office, CYS and DPW said JS committed no crime joe should have said “No you are wrong. He’s a pedo. Investigate until you find something” WOW. You really are gullible. You can call me what you like as I really don’t care because nobody that matters cares what you think. The websites you dismiss as apologist propaganda have been referenced by the defense attorney’s and have said it helped a great deal and they found out things they didn’t know about. Thankfully we still have the court of law to determine if I’m right and your wrong and vice versa and not the media. So I am done with you because if Jesus Christ himself told you you have it all wrong you would call him an apologist given that you have “Made your mind up”.

          • Schmutzie

            What part of “I didn’t need the Freeh Report” don’t you understand?

            I have Joe Paterno’s own words. He told the April 2011 grand jury that Mike McQueary told him that “something sexual” happened in the Lasch Building showers in 2001. I know that from 2001 to 2011, I never heard Joe Paterno say one thing about something of a “sexual nature” happening in 2001. That means that when Paterno finally acknowledged in 2011 that he knew something, ANYTHING “sexual” happened between Sandusky and a naked boy in 2001, that he had remained silent for 10 years. That’s all I needed to know to draw a conclusion about Joe Paterno. Had there been no Freeh Report, no NCAA sanctions, no punishment at all of Penn State, I’d still think the exact same thing about Joe Paterno. He was a guy who knew, via Mike McQueary, that something happened in those showers, and he did nothing for a decade.

            The Freeh Report included emails from Tim Curley to Gary Schultz that referred to him, Curley, “touching base” with Paterno in 1998. The Freeh Report also contained emails from Curley, in which he says he was uncomfortable with the original plan of reporting Sandusky to Second Mile and Pennsylvania Welfare, after thinking about it, and “after talking to Joe.”

            None of that is Louis Freeh expressing an opinion. None of that is in any way written in Louis Freeh’s hand. They were emails, part of the evidence used in the most recent charges brought against Spanier, as well as additional charges against Curley and Schultz. None of my opinion of Joe Paterno is based on Louis Freeh’s opinion or his editorializing. It’s based strictly on the email evidence that I’ve seen in multiple places.

            You want to babble on and on about credibility of lawyers, about Louis Freeh being this or that, and I’m telling you I haven’t based any of my opinion on the opinion of Louis Freeh. It’s based on Paterno’s own words, his inaction from 2001-2011, and emails written by Tim Curley, which are now being used as evidence in the criminal trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Those emails are not Louis Freeh’s “opinion”!!! They are Tim Curley’s words. Paterno’s testimony to the grand jury are not Louis Freeh’s opinion!! They are Joe Paterno’s own words.

            You are really quite dense.

          • Billyboy172

            No you are lost in your preconceived notions. I don’t care what those e-mails say because they are very vague. Without talking to Curly and Paterno you are just speculating their meaning. You are stuck in the now not the then. Those e-mails prove nothing until there is testimony from the writers. I suppose you never ever forwarded an e-mail where you didn’t change the subject line but changed the message? Never mind Curly always referred to Paterno as Joe from his playing days till now. Find one message where you know Curly is talking about Paterno where he is calling him coach. And even if he did know about 1998 so what? He said he heard some kind of rumor. But if he knew of the investigation he could say “Sure I know of an investigation that found JS committed no crime and it was thoroughly investigated”. Duh. Your pathetic. Don’t bother responding. You dismiss all evidence and common sense in looking at this. You have made your mind up on the flimsiest set of circumstances just proves how narrow minded you are. Don’t respond. Enough of your BS.

          • Schmutzie

            Another moron who doesn’t know how to use an apostrophe. “Your pathetic”- Should be “you’re pathetic” ya big dummy.

            So what if he knew about 1998? Well, I’ll tell you what BillyBob, …he said 2001 was the first he heard about Sandusky, except for maybe some rumor but he’s not sure. The old, can’t remember defense. Very handy. But if in fact he did know back in 1998, and Curley did touch base with coach (Paterno, the subject of the email), then that means Paterno lied to the grand jury.

            But never mind that.

            You seem to be ignoring the basis for my opinion, which I’ve repeated three times now. I’ll give it one more shot. I base my opinion on Joe Paterno’s own words. Paterno’s own words. Once more,..Paterno’s own words. The words he spoke to the April 2011 grand jury. “Something of a sexual nature.” Furthermore, I base my opinion on Paterno’s inaction from 2001-2011. He did nothing about Sandusky, who was seen often on campus, for a decade. Your hero did, literally, nothing. Okay? Simple enough for you Cletus?

            He told the grand jury he knew something sexual took place in 2001. We didn’t find out that Paterno knew something sexual took place in 2001 until 2011. That’s it. That’s all I need to know that Joe Paterno was not a man of honor, integrity, morality, or leadership.
            You don’t erect statues of a guy who does the absolute legal minimum when kids are in danger.

            You’re deluded BillyBob. You suffer from what’s known as confirmation bias. You know what you believe about Joe Paterno, and you read websites like this clown Ziegler’s where your opinion is reinforced. You only accept incoming data that confirms what you already believe. Anyone who expresses an opinion that differs from your own is dismissed as a hater, a liar, a hack, or a whore in search of ratings.

            Let me try to clarify it even more for you. If, at the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier trials, those 3 defendants say that from 2001-2011, Joe Paterno was not part of any cover-up, that he never gave any order to slap a lid on the whole story, that he only knew about 2001, and nothing more, it won’t change my opinion of Joe Paterno. If the NCAA apologizes to Penn State and repeals the sanctions, it won’t change my opinion of Joe Paterno. All I need to know about Paterno is what I already know based on his own words. He wasn’t the guy you Penn State fans thought he was. If he was that guy, he would have done something, anything, to stop Sandusky in 2001. But he didn’t. Instead, he did zero, zilch, nada. And that will be his legacy no matter how people like you huff and puff and wish it was otherwise.

            Don’t worry BillyBob. Nobody is saying you can’t keep your JoePa Shrine and your 409 T-Shirt. You’re free to keep thinking whatever the hell you want. But if you think you’re changing anybody’s opinion with your line of mumbo-jumbo, you are very sadly mistaken and you are wasting your time.

          • Billyboy172

            Who gives a shit what your opinion is. The world won’t stop because of what the all knowing ignorant schmutziegirl thinks. What part of don’t respond didn’t you understand? Like I said nobody that matters gives 2 shits what you think. I guess if you see a guy kissing a girl you better call the police before the rape occurs as that is sexual nature. Sexual nature only has about 1,000 variations moron. Fondling? What the hell would JS be doing to accomplish that? Another 1,000 variations. And then nimrod “I really don’t know what you would call it”. He was throwing out adjectives. If you read his GJ pretrial interview there isn’t one word about sex. And Curly says he informed Joe about the end of the inquiry. So after “talking it over with Joe” there isn’t the tiniest possibility Curly said “We looked into it and it turned out to be Jerry being Jerry. He was Horsing around as usual. Mike is mistaken and it really was nothing. But we’re going to inform CYS”. “well if it was nothing why do that?”. So dimwit I can paint a totally different scenario that is just as plausible as yours. Until Curly, Shulz and Spanier testify its all speculation. But since you made your mind up like an ignorant cow who has lost all sense of objectivity go back to your I hate Joe shrine and curse him to hell some more. You are a media fed sheep who can’t think straight. And you are to dumb to realize that if there was a cover up McQuery would have a starring role in it then flip when investigators got to him. No you have lost all ability to think logically. So call me all the names you want. Who cares about a guy that may be in Utah for all I know and whose opinion is worthless to anyone that matters. Its really sad people like you make decisions before anyone has had their day in court. But hey go with it. I am not trying to change your mind. I am showing you what is going to come out and will be part of the trial. Think not? Then you really are clueless.

          • Schmutzie

            Wow! Amazing. So you think there are “variations” of sexual behavior between an adult and a child? That’s what Jerry Sandusky thought too.

            We aren’t talking about a guy and a girl kissing, moron. We’re talking about an adult and a naked child. According to the law, and according to people who aren’t completely insane (that leaves you out apparently) “Sexual nature” has only ONE meaning when it’s taking place between a 57 year old man and a 10 year old boy. That meaning is—>illegal<—.

            1000 variations of what Sandusky might have been trying to do by fondling a naked boy? Bleeechhh. You're disgusting.

          • Billyboy172

            Kiss the the ass of the guy sitting next to you asshole. You don’t realize that if JS went to trial in 2001 there would be a snowballs chance in Hell he would have been convicted. The only reason he was convicted of the grooming charges was because of all that other testimony. I’m not saying he’s innocent because he’s guilty. But get real. We’re talking about 2001 not 2012. Your whole premise is McQuery told everyone in detail. So Joe, Curly, Shulz and Dranov are lying and MM is telling the truth? Get real. You put a guy whose wife divorced him because he was fooling around over the record of a man who led an exemplary life for 61 years, A doctor who is a friend of his family, and the noble lives of Curly and Shulz. So go

          • Billyboy172

            One other thing about your opinion and no matter what happens it won’t change your mind. You have to remember Joe asked Mike McQuery several months after the incident whether he had any problems with the way it turned out and MM is on the record that he told Joe he didn’t have any issues. I don’t know how much you know about JP but had MM said “No, I am not happy with how it turned out.” JP would have gone further and done more. Player after player has said that Joe would not act on rumors but facts. And what MM told him did not raise a 5 alarm fire. If it did MM would have answered that question differently.

      • SO the defense of someone has become “apologizing” for them… fascinating. I expect that you are one of the few that actually looked up the word.
        So what word do we have for those that print lies and claim them to be the truth? Liar, fool, ratings driven whore?

        • Actually, early Christian origin… fascinating.

        • Schmutzie

          Another person who doesn’t know what apologist means?

          I didn’t have to look it up. I know what it means. The point is, the word apologist is not pejorative. His post said that he’s sick and tired of this “JoePaologist BS” and went on to say that he isn’t “apologizing.” I merely pointed out that the word apologist does not mean someone who apologizes on behalf of someone, it means someone who defends someone. By virtue of his posts, he’s clearly defending Joe Paterno. And so by definition of the word, he’s an apologist. He shouldn’t be offended by the word “JoePologist.” He should be proud of it. He should own it. He’s earned it.

    • In what possible way is the report of a grown man fondling a young boy in the shower not worthy of a call to the authorities. He didn’t tell anyone for a day because he didn’t want to “interrupt” their weekends. What kind of value system does this reveal.

      Go after as many others as you think guilty and let the chips fall where they may, But in trying to justify those action show you are definitly earning that title

      • Billyboy172

        Whats the use. Perception is reality and you have yours. Go with it. I’m done arguing with people like you. The truth will be coming soon. Then we’ll see.

        • Ah yes, when you cant come up with a cogent argument fall back on “the truth” that is coming

          • Billyboy172

            Look nimrod you will say the say thing and I will say the same thing and where will it get us? I won’t change your mind and you certainly won’t change mine. I only have so many hours remaining (As you do) in this life and don’t want to waste them on a zero sum argument. I’m not falling back on anything. You can read the rest of the posts and argue those points all day if you like.

    • Fred Nailo

      My point is that this video is garbage not that Joe was guilty or any of the rest of them were – except Sandusky.

      Attempting to destroy or distort McQueary is a shame. The appearance of Amendola is a tragedy. Seeing Franco grasping at straws is sad. Gary Gray still cant believe Jerry is guilty. Andrew Pitz should be ashamed. Ziegler is a total hack and loose cannon.

      I have a reasonable doubt and a grant a presumption of innocence to anyone who hasn’t had their day in court and I believe there are many changes yet to come.

      • Billyboy172

        Thanks for that explanation. I don’t agree with you on the film and that’s fine. Last time I checked this is still America and there will be more info if these cases actually go to court. We’ll get an answer to that question early next month. And yes the only one guilty SO FAR and rightfully so is Sandusky. But I truly do have my doubts about everyone else.

  • Robert Inverso

    Your a real piece of work… You continue to show a lack of knowledge of the facts, and even the the non-facts. Go educate yourself on what is going on and then try to come back and have a grown up conversation about this subject.

  • Robert Inverso

    You know, here is another way of looking at this, one:

    If the authorities had done their jobs in 1998, the people who are suppose to be trained to protect children, this would have never gotten to 2001.


    All the crap about trying to figure out tried PSU covering it up blinds people from the real story on how the case against against Sandusky started:

    From Aaron Fisher’s own story,

    By the time Fisher was 15, he reached a breaking point and finally summoned the courage to tell his mother and the school’s principal, Karen Probst, that Sandusky was sexually abusing him.

    “Aaron was melting down in the office,” Dawn Daniels said. “I immediately told them we need to call the police.”

    But the mother and son say they were shocked by the principal’s response.

    “They said that Jerry has a heart of gold and that he wouldn’t do those type of things,” Daniels said “They tell me to go home and think about it.”

    Daniels did not follow their advice. Instead she says she told Probst that she would be notifying Clinton County Children and Youth Services of the allegations directly.

    Corbett sat on this for 3 years until he was elected Govenor.. he said he had to wait until more people came forward, but with not publicly arresting Sandusky and letting the world know what Corbett knew, he let victims sit there and continue to be assaulted.

    Here he had someone that was saying he was molested by Sandusky, not, he had witnessed Sandusky molesting someone… and it took him 3 years to make it public… that’s the real cover up.. How long would it have taken if Corbett just a a witness and no victim?

    Funny how after the Nov, 2011 arrest, victims came out of the woodwork… what did the 2001 incident really get for the prosecution of Sandusky? Nothing! No victim 2 testified, he was not convicted on that count.

    Corbett is the cover up guy, and he had more than enough motive to do it, if he would have arrested Sandusky in 2008 when Aron Fischer first reported it, he could have lost the votes of the PSU Alumni, he definitely would have lost the monetary contributions from Second Mile and possibly some of the Alumni, putting his election chances in the crapper, instead he waits until he is elected, and then sends the dogs after Sandusky. That is a hell of a lot easier to believe than PSU officials covering up 2001 for some, still to be determined, bad publicity.

  • A. Ronson

    All I had to read was that Ziegler produced a pro-Sarah Palin movie and I stopped reading. That tells you all you need to know! He doesn’t live in the real world!

    • Seriously, it’s called Media Malpractice. You have to watch the last segment. It’s interviews with voters… It made me wet myself… it is soooo funny.

  • FMWarner

    Whatever the merits of the film, I don’t understand why the presence of a larger wrong (the molestation) means that any possible lesser related wrongs (Paterno’s framing) can’t be examined on their own. Making a lesser wrong the main topic of a film isn’t at all the same as saying it’s “more wrong”.

  • You seem to have missed the point. Instead of a critique of the short film, you want to hash out the details of the scandal. Unfortunately, you are not aware of most of the facts.

    Read a bit more and then decide what you want to be… moralist, reporter, movie critique… it’s up to you. Just be proud that you have “Jackass Blowhard” covered.

  • In Mr. Ziegler’s YouTube video, convicted child abuser Jerry Sandusky’s attorney as part of their effort to “defend” Joe Paterno and his actions. Let’s remember some of the comments that we have heard from Mr. Joe Amendola. This same source in “The Framing of Joe Paterno” YouTube video was also the one in Bellefonte court claiming how the abused children were lying about Mr. Sandusky, how they were in this for “financial interest,” and how showering naked with young boys was part of Mr. Sandusky’s “culture.” This is the SAME Joe Amendola, whose defense team claimed that Mr. Sandusky wasn’t sexually abusing young boys in the Penn State football showers, but was only teaching them “how to put soap on their body.”

    To those who continue to live in denial over the need for accountability of those who allowed Sandusky’s actions to happen, their comments are an embarrassment to themselves and to our society.

    They also don’t understand the history of Penn State and its Alma

    Mater song. “May no act of ours bring shame,” was never about Penn State “Pride,” it was about Penn State RESPONSIBILITY.

    PSU Alumnus, Class of 1979