A Handy Resource: The Biggest Media Myths of the Jerry Sandusky Scandal

Since details don’t seem to really matter anymore, here is the "Cliffs Notes" version of how the media created a false narrative (which they refuse to correct) in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. You might think of this as "Why Nearly Everything You Think You Know About the Penn State Story is False." Please feel free to share it as a resource with those whose minds you are trying to open about what really happened here.

In the basic order in which they occurred, these are the biggest media-created myths…

Mike McQueary saw a young boy getting raped by Jerry Sandusky in a Penn State shower.

(McQueary saw no such thing and has said under oath that he saw no such thing. Sandusky was found not guilty of this charge at trial and there are many valid reasons to doubt McQueary’s story and the way in which it has been interpreted.)

(McQueary himself has said that did not come close to happening and has never said under oath that he ever told anyone at the time all the specifics he now claims he witnessed.)

(Paterno immediately contacted and met with both his superior and the person in charge of the campus police and then had them meet with McQueary. Penn State then contacted Sandusky’s employer about the McQueary incident.)

Joe Paterno’s testimony proves he "knew" at the time McQueary saw something "sexual."

(While Paterno used those words in his testimony, it is not clear what he really intended to mean by them. There is also circumstantial evidence that Paterno may have been "fed" those words by McQueary or someone else because he needed to refresh his memory of the ten year old conversation at the age of 84. It should be noted that in the report on Paterno's police interview he gave just before his testimony there is no mention whatsoever of McQueary having told him something of a "sexual" nature.)

(McQueary’s story has changed significantly both publicly and privately. It has shifted each time seemingly based on his self interest at that particular moment. He also has a history of making false accusations and engaging in highly inappropriate sexual conduct himself. McQueary had an incentive to give investigators what they wanted because he might have been charged with "not reporting," and now has an incentive to lie in order to maintain his "whistleblower" lawsuit against Penn State.)

(They were clearly charged with perjury because, if they weren’t, McQueary’s testimony, since they largely contradict it, would have been essentially hung out to dry. As for the "not reporting" charge, it is not even clear that they were "mandated reporters" under a poorly written law and, even if they were, it is hard to understand how they were charged and Dr. Dranov, who spoke to McQueary the night of the episode, and McQueary himself, were not.)

(Schultz’s testimony is, frankly, bizarre, and perhaps the greatest proof that there was no "cover up." Having retired two years earlier, he obviously has forgotten almost everything about what happened many years before, but, even more incredibly, his description of what McQueary told him is obviously based on what he IMAGINED might have happened in the shower after hearing McQueary’s "no details" account of the shower scene.)

(This is simply an absurd and self-severing media interpretation. He said, "With the benefit of hindsight," that he wishes he had done "more." This is nothing other than a statement of the obvious which should/should have been stated by literally hundreds of other people in this case. If the head of American Airlines said the same thing about 9/11, would anyone seriously take that as an admission of "guilt"?)

Joe Paterno knew everything that happened in State College and ran all of Penn State.

(Paterno was obviously powerful, but he was not "all powerful" and, especially as he aged, did not "rule" Penn State. For instance, the baseball field was placed across the street from the football stadium against his wishes and his hand written note during Sandusky’s retirement negotiations saying that he should not be allowed to bring kids on campus was ignored.)

Jerry Sandusky’s retirement was related to the 1998 criminal investigation of him.

(Contrary to numerous media reports even after the release of the Freeh Report, the investigation actually concludes the exact opposite by specifically exonerating Paterno from having knowledge of any allegations against Sandusky before telling him he would never be the head coach at Penn State, which facilitated his retirement.)

(It will become clear that the key moment in the events which led to the firing of Joe Paterno was the cancellation of his final Tuesday press conference, which cut off his chance to change the emerging media narrative and made it clear that Paterno’s job was in great peril. That decision was made by one person with an obvious vendetta against Paterno, board member John Surma.)

The student riot which followed Paterno’s firing was because of anger over the football team being harmed.

(There is just no evidence to support this media-created narrative. Only a few students rioted, there are strong indications that the media actually urged them to do so, and it is not a coincidence that a television truck was the largest object of their ire. Most students were upset at the lack of due process for a guy they saw as a grandfather figure.)

The Syracuse pedophilia case didn’t deserve the same treatment as Penn State’s.

(Please. The Syracuse case involved a prior botched investigation, a current assistant coach, victims which came directly from the program, an actual tape proving the allegations, and a head coach who called the victims money grubbing liars. Had ESPN wanted to make it just as big as Penn State, they easily could have, but a huge percentage of ESPN workers went to Syracuse.)

(The reality is that no one knew Sandusky was a pedophile because he had done such a good job of "grooming" the entire town. He had dozens of foster children, numerous adopted children, and founded the largest troubled children’s charity in the state. Sandusky created a "big lie" that no one, not even his wife, suspected was a façade.)

(Of all of the entities that failed in their obligation to protect children, Penn State was far behind the various law enforcement agencies involved in the 98 investigation, the Second Mile charity, and the parents/guardians/teachers/coaches of the victims.)

(The investigation never even spoke to any of the five Penn State people closest to the story and its outrageous conclusions are not remotely backed up by the meager evidence that it found.)

(The report never even tries to explain why it is that Paterno, who was essentially supposedly acting as a "Mafia Don" in this cover up, allowed his employee Mike McQueary to testify as he did or why Paterno himself didn’t simply say, "I don’t remember." It also never addresses why Tim Curley, who supposedly had his life destroyed by a Paterno-led cover up, issued a statement at Paterno’s death praising his "honor and integrity.")

Joe Paterno had any reason to fear “negative publicity” from reporting Sandusky.

(He didn’t like Sandusky, Sandusky was a former coach, and Paterno’s sterling reputation would have given him any benefit of the doubt in 2001 if Sandusky would have been turned over to authorities. As the Syracuse case shows, Paterno, who never gave a damn about "negative publicity," had nothing really to fear anyway.)

(The email evidence that Paterno "knew" about 1998 is incredibly thin and potentially not even related to him but rather Sandusky. It also would have been technically illegal for Paterno to be informed of the details and even Freeh admits that there is no evidence that Paterno was ever informed of its conclusion.)

(All Penn State knew was a vague and fairly mild allegation was made and that a law enforcement investigation, thanks to a report from an "expert" who concluded that Sandusky was not a pedophile, determined that no charges should be filed. What were they supposed to do? Presume that a local legend not charged with a crime was actually guilty and therefore destroy a massive children’s charity?!)

(This was simply a concoction by Louis Freeh intended to be his back up in case the alleged "cover up" evidence didn’t pan out. Penn State’s statistical record on football academics was one of the best in the nation for decades and Paterno’s former players universally support the notion that he put academics/character over anything else.)

(Most people simply don’t understand this basic chain of events: Surma and the BOT unanimously decide to prematurely fire Paterno mistakenly thinking that it will “end” the story, the students riot and are castigated unfairly, killing their resolve to fight back in the future, the alumni object strongly to the BOT’s action and eventually elect three new members, the BOT needs to justify the firing of Paterno and they commission the Freeh Report, Freeh gets paid $6.5 million by the BOT and knows exactly what they and the media want, Freeh issues an absurd report which the Penn State administration has zero incentive to refute it and the media fosters the idea that any fight back shows Penn State doesn’t "get" it, this leads the statue being taken down in an effort to placate the NCAA which decides to take advantage of the reality that they can create whatever punishment they want without any opposition from Penn State or the media.)

(Not only did the NCAA have no jurisdiction over a criminal matter, but the sanctions made absolutely no sense. Taking away victories for something that had nothing to do with gaining a competitive advantage is simply absurd, but even more ridiculous is the notion that Penn State had any culpability starting in 1998 because a botched law enforcement investigation they had limited knowledge of resulted in charges not even being filed. It also appears as if the NCAA didn’t even remotely understand that Freeh Report, as their president has laughably claimed that it had subpoena power, which it in no way had.)

(The "move on" movement is a sure sign that the true story has not been allowed to be told here. How in the world is it remotely just to punish severely before all the facts are close to being in and then claim that it is now time to "move on" because the punishment has already been decided? How does that not sound like something right out of the book 1984?)

No media celebrity has taken up the other side of the story, so it must not exist.

(We now live in a world where celebrity is everything and the weight of a given perspective is directly proportional to the fame of the person providing it. But famous media people inherently have something to lose and the massive media momentum and outright intimidation on one side of this story has prevented anyone from this group, already not known for their courage, from having the guts to even give the other side a remotely fair shake. There is just too much risk involved.)

(While public trust in the news media is at all-time low, it is still much higher than it should be. Thanks to economic pressures and the ability to determine almost instantly which stories "pop" and which don’t, ratings are all that matter in the modern media, especially the sports media. This is why the "fall of Joe Paterno" is far more desirable a narrative than the "Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile" story and why it is exponentially more exciting than the "potential fall of a Syracuse coach who isn’t as famous and who nobody ever really expected very much from anyway." The sad reality of modern life is that a complicated truth simply can no longer remotely compete with a simple story that will sell.)

This ice-cream thing is so funny because everybody is making their own assumptions on how this whole thing transpired.

Was the ice-cream parlor selling a menu item that was called Sandusky that looked like “private parts” before the scandal broke? Then everybody knew.

Did the icecream parlor sell a menu item that did NOT look like private parts, named Sandusky, but was made to look provocative after it was purchased, but before it was consumed. Then that is quite a different story.

At this point, I cant help it. I am off to Baskin Robbins!

You think it’s funny. I think it’s sad. This entire scandal has been like a big game of media “telephone”, where stuff just gets repeated as facts until even intelligent people are gobbling it up.

I will say this. There are numerous law suits in the works, and if/when that report (factfreeh) lands in ANY court, it will be torn to pieces like no document you’ve ever seen.

I would assume the first time the document will see court will be if someone can get the ncaa on sanctions/win vacation. Just my opinion

I also believe strongly that ALL charges against Curley and Schultz will be dismissed...but, not until PSU settles with mcqueary, where there will no doubt be a strict confidentiality agreement.

That University is on fire right now between alumni and the b.o.t. and president (who was the one that actually signed off on sandusky’s emeritus status). Football games are a distraction at this point.

Peetz (BNY Mellon), Surma (US Steel) and the corrupt governor Corbett are running this University, and alums are not happy with the way they have handled things. Their own connections to the second mile are what is being covered up here. Not some out of control Football Program.

<>This monster (Sandusky) repeatedly molested—and in some cases raped—young boys who trusted him. And another monster did nothing, knowing full-well that all was not right with the former defensive end.<>

Are you referring to Louis Freeh???

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2928292/posts

“A copy of a document sent to me by a source and dated February 28,2000 ( a link is provided at the bottom) and further corroborated by other documentation has revealed that MBNA bank beginning in 2000 and throughout the entire tenure of Louis Freeh as the bank’s vice chairman and general counsel, was a major corporate sponsor of Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile and continued to be throughout Freeh’s tenure at the bank from 2001 to 2006 when MBNA bank was bought by Bank of America for $35 billion. Freeh at the time cashed in $20 million in stock options.”

No wonder Louis Freeh’s hatchetjob led everyone away from the Second Mile and its activity during this time. It would have pointed to him and the man who hired him to do the hatchetjob.

No, that is the point. This wasn’t a secret. They had this different looking ice cream offering named after Sandusky, as it was well known that he was a weirdo. More like an inside joke. Otherwise the ice cream place wouldn’t of had this on their menu.

I always wondered about that. How did the owner know about Sandusky's proclivities???

Was it just rumor or more than that??? If it was more than that, then why didn't the owner of the ice cream parlor go to the police???

Why wasn't he atleast interviewed by Louis Freeh???

Then don't get mad at FR people for something that the alums should be upset with but apparently are not -- atleast not enough. This is a matter that the alums need to get behind and fix.

That said anyone who thinks Joe Paterno is guilty of some offense here has not read the Freehdumb Report. Just before Freeh accuses Paterno on no evidence at all, he admits that he did the right thing and went above and beyond what was required when this matter was brought to him. Paterno never wanted Sandusky bringing his 2nd Mile kids to the football facilities and after the incident it all stopped. What more was he supposed to do???

BTW read McQueary's multiple conflicting statements about what he allegedly saw and you will understand why Curley and Schultz did not go directly to DPW, and why they will likely be acquitted of any wrongdoing.

Also read Pennsylvania Law -- the responsibility for reporting this incident to DPW fell upon the executive director of the Second Mile, Dr Raykowitz, noted child psychologist who was clearly notified of Sandusky's shower incident.

Before accepting $6 million to write this hatchetjob Freeh should have admitted that he knew Dr Raykowitz from his years as VP and co-counsel at MBNA Bank that sponsored Sandusky Second Mile events. Can you smell conflict of interest???

One last note that few on this forum know. When it went to trial, the jury found Sandusky not guilty of child molestation in the shower incident. McQeary's Grand Jury testimony turned out to have been altered by the Attorney General and when given under oath it fell short of child molestation and closer to child's play per the jury.

Louis Freeh knew this before writing his report but just happened to omit it like he omitted other pertinent facts. It didn't fit his $6 million dollar narrative.

Can you smell Freeh fraud??? Why would anybody who knew him to expect anything other than fraud from him???

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.