How Did Investigators Find the Victims?

There’s one more thing I’ve been trying to understand from the Sandusky presentment: How did the grand jury find the victims described in the presentment?

For some of the victims, the answer is clear. The mother of Victim 1 (the boy who Sandusky met at his high school) for example, told his school and the school, in turn, told the cops. That’s what set off this investigation.

From there, they would have quickly found Victim 6 (the boy whose mother called the University cops), because there was a lengthy report on what happened between him and Sandusky in 1998. And it seems that Victim 6 may have led investigators to contact Victims 5 and 7, both of whom he knew (he also alerted investigators to a B.K. who was also allegedly abused; the grand jury couldn’t subpoena him because he is serving in the military overseas).

And it’s always possible that a victim or a witness came forward after the first reports of the grand jury investigation were made public this spring.

But for some of the kids, it seems much more likely that an insider–someone from Penn State’s Football program–alerted the grand jury. This is particularly true for Victims 2 (the boy McQuery witnessed being raped in 2002) and 8 (the boy a janitor witnessed being fellated in 2000), since their identities remain unknown to the grand jury.

Here’s a summary of the victims with a description of any obvious way by which they would come to the attention of the grand jury.

Here’s one possible–speculative–scenario for how the investigation moved forward and how new victims were discovered.

The investigation started at least by November 2008. Victim 1’s mother contacted her son’s school about Sandusky, who was then a full time volunteer football coach. The school alerted authorities. In addition to the victim, investigators spoke to at least a high school wrestling coach, the assistant principal, and another kid who had witnessed Sandusky and the victim together (Sandusky touched the other kid inappropriately, too). In addition, the state tracked almost 120 calls, over 19 months, from Sandusky to Victim 1 as the boy stopped contact with him and the investigation started.

The investigation associated with Victim 1 would presumably have led to Victim 6, the boy whose mother had alerted the University Police to inappropriate contact in 1998. The authorities did an extensive report on that incident, which they would have found quickly. Additionally, it is likely that Victim 6 alerted authorities to Victims 5 and 7, both of whom he knew through Sandusky from that same time period. Note that Sandusky, his wife, and a Sandusky friend called Victim 7 in the period before he testified before the grand jury, though he did not return the calls. [Update] Note: I sort of assume the investigation got to Victims 5, 7, and B.K. within the last year, because had they done so earlier, B.K. would presumably have returned from deployment, giving them a chance to interview him.

Here’s where I wonder whether the grand jury started looking into why Sandusky was ousted in 1999, a year after the incident with Victim 6, and in a period (they would have presumably discovered) that he had also allegedly molested two or three other boys.

And that may have led them to Victims 4, and through him, to Victim 3, who knew him.

Victim 4 is the boy whom Sandusky brought to two consecutive Bowl Games, the 1998 Outback Bowl (which was held January 1, 1999) and the 1999 Alamo Bowl (December 28, 1999). In addition Sandusky gave Victim 4 the most elaborate gifts of any of the victims–things like a snowboard, golf clubs, and ice hockey equipment. And Victim 4 accompanied Sandusky to many public events, sharing his hotel room or siting at the coaches table with him. Victim 4 showed up in a video Sandusky made and in a Sports Illustrated article on Sandusky. In other words, almost alone of the victims, those close to the football program would have reason to know precisely who he was. And given that sexual abuse with Victim 4 happened in both private (hotels) and public spaces (the football sauna), it is possible people suspected the relationship was more than just a fatherly one.

(Note, I wondered whether Victim 4 could be the boy the janitor saw being fellated by Sandusky in 2000; that’s unlikely, since one of the witnesses thought the boy was between 11 and 13, and Victim 4 would have been 16 by 2000. But it’s not impossible.)

The presentment describes that after Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the Head Coach, Sandusky came to Victim 4 to complain.

Victim 4 remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State and which preceded Sandusky’s retirement.

Given that this hint that Sandusky might have been forced out is tied to Victim 4, I now wonder whether it was this more public relationship, on top of the incident with Victim 6, that led Paterno to push Sandusky out, if that’s what happened.

In other words, I’m wondering whether the investigators started to look into why Sandusky was pushed out in 1999. And in the process of asking questions to someone from the program, found out about Victim 4. Note, if someone from PSU tipped off the investigators to this boy, it probably wasn’t McQueary, as these events all seem to have occurred during the window–1997 to 2000–when McQueary was away from State College pursuing a pro career.

Which leaves Victims 2–the unknown boy who was anally raped in 2002–and Victim 8–the unknown boy whom Sandusky allegedly fellated in 2000. It’s pretty clear that someone at Penn State had to have told investigators about these boys, as the boys haven’t been identified.

Now, two different janitors testified about Victim 8 (and more knew about him), though the primary witness suffers from dementia and did not testify. But it’s possible any one of the other janitors working that night (the two witnesses appear to still work at Penn State) heard of the investigation and alerted investigators.

But I also wonder whether there’s someone who knew of all of these stories: Victim 4’s rather public tie to Sandusky, Victim 2, whose plight was discussed 5 ranks up the chain to Spanier, and Victim 8, whom the night janitors learned of?

If so, that person probably came forward fairly late in the investigation. Mike McQueary testified before the grand jury in December 2010; Tim Curley and Gary Schultz both testified on January 12, 2011. (It also appears that the head of The Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, testified this year, because the charity says the Attorney General’s office first contacted them early this year).

Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She’s known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps.

Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial.

Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the “feuilleton,” a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.

174 replies
  1. scribe says:

    I think a lot of the information could have been garnered by adept investigators working with publicly available information, or information available to law enforcement for the asking. Travel records – who went, who paid – to bowl games, I’m sure, is kept with the NCAA and the U for the NCAA purposes. Charities, such as Second Mile, have to report on their activities to … the Attorney General. It would take digging, but it could be dug out.

  2. orionATL says:

    at this point i don’t see how these could have been the only children sandusky was involved with sexually. a guy who engages in one of the most taboo sexual practices of his times, with so little regard for detection, is someone who is more akin to a serial murderer.

    i would guess sandusky had assignations with dozens of boys thpugh the university wouuld not necessarily have been involved in all.

    let’s see if the university board’s “decisiveness” is a result of following rupert murdoch’s dictum: bury your mistakes.

    i’ll also be interested to see if political figures in pennsylvania state politics began quietly helping the univ cover up the poop.

  3. orionATL says:


    jeesus, bmaz.

    what a tragedy for the children involved and the institution(s) involved.

    weak, irresolute leadership causes so much sorrow in our society.

  4. orionATL says:

    by the way bmaz,

    if all this penn state mess doesn’t end up doubling back on the substance of an essay you wrote some time back about college athletics, i’ll eat my hat.

    for right now, the facts are focused on individuals associated with penn state and with football.

    but i’d bet behind all these penn state specifics, and the specifics from other disgraced univ athletic programs programs, stands the giant, dark shadow of big-time, big-money-for-the-university athletics.

  5. tonycpsu says:

    @scribe: If the “University” wnted him gone in 2004, he’d have been gone. The President and AD wanted him gone, but he still had a lot of support on the board of trustees.

  6. tonycpsu says:

    @orionATL: Well, it’s complicated. I think it’s more a case of the board being spooked by the media frenzy, and wanting to serve up Joe as a sacrificial lamb to satisfy the masses. That’s silly, of course, because this story is so big now that even casting off a legendary coach and symbol of the University isn’t going to distract all that much from the horrific scene, but the board has shown repeatedly that they couldn’t pass the school’s basic PR curriculum.

  7. MadDog says:


    “…but he still had a lot of support on the board of trustees.”

    Speaking of the Board of Trustees, how much did they know and when did they know it?

    I don’t know that anyone on the the Board of Trustees had knowledge of this set of crimes over the course of its long history, but it surely must be a question to be asked.

  8. tonycpsu says:

    @MadDog: As a proud Penn State alum, I agree 100%. The sooner we clean out everyone who had anything to do with this, the sooner I can get back to being proud of the PSU flag waving in front of my house.

  9. MadDog says:

    @emptywheel: When Corbett was the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Ed Rendell was Governor.

    Two things jump out at me:

    1) Governors are typically in the loop as to what their AGs are working on.
    2) Apparently, Pennsylvania Governors are members of the Penn State Board of Trustees. Ed Rendell served as Governor of Pennsylvania from January 21, 2003 to January 18, 2011.

    A reasonable person might ask what did Ed Rendell know about this set of crimes.

  10. emptywheel says:

    @MadDog: Except that article made it clear Corbett got out of the loop once he became governor.

    Though it’s worth noting that Curley and Schultz had their GJ interview on the last Wednesday of his AG tenure.

  11. MadDog says:

    @emptywheel: I took the “out of the loop” aspect more to be with regard to conflict of interest rather than a Governor knowing what his AG was working on.

    I may be totally off base here with regard to both the Board of Trustees or with then Governor Ed Rendell, but it still seems to me a reasonable question to ask as to what their knowledge was and when.

  12. Peterr says:

    I don’t have the presentment in front of me at the moment, but from reading it earlier it is clear that at some point, investigators got access to Sandusky’s cell phone records. Given the way he repeatedly called his victims, I suspect they may have used those call records to sift out a couple of victims.

  13. Julia Erwin-Dominguez says:

    @Bustednuckles: Paterno is most assuredly not a “fall guy” for he is not the only person to take the fall for this failure of moral agency.

    The President, the chief of Business Operations, and the Athletic Director, have all fallen–and two of them have been arrested. It’s also reported that as of today (Friday) afternoon, McQueary has been placed on administrative leave.

  14. Sparkles the Iguana says:

    Is anyone else surprised that Sandusky was given bail? He must be under police protection from the mobs with torches, right? Isn’t anyone afraid he will (euphemism) harm himself?

  15. tonycpsu says:

    @Sparkles the Iguana: Not just bail, but unsecured bail.

    Yeah, I’m concerned about his safety — not just from outside, but from himself. Someone threw a cinderblock through his window earlier today, and, as far as I’m aware, he doesn’t have any sort of 24-hour police or security protection. How many Jack Rubys are out there ready to dole out some vigilante justice?

    It would just add to the tragedy if he took his own life or had it taken from him before he faces justice in court and in prison.

  16. emptywheel says:

    @Peterr: They got the cell phones on his most recent victim.

    But how many underprivileged pre-teens had cell phones in the late 1990s?

  17. joberly says:

    Thanks to EW for doing the work of organizing the chronology. It struck me when reading the grand jury presentment that the prosecutors chose not to number the victims in any chronological order of when Sandusky committed his crimes against them. But, if I understand EW’s reporting, neither did the prosecutors number the victims in the chronological order that their investigative work found the boys. That is, the prosecutors did not find Victim # 2 after they found Victim # 1, and Victim # 3 next, and so forth. The prosecutors must have had their own reasons for putting the testimony about Victim # 2, the rape witnessed by McQueary, near the top of the report.

    Also, thanks to EW for figuring out timing of those bowl games. When PSU went to the Outback Bowl for the 1998 season (played 1-1-99), Sandusky was still the Defensive Coordinator. When the team went to the 1999 Alamo Bowl (on 12-28-99), he had taken early retirement, forced out by Paterno in May of 1999. The grand jury presentment says Victim 4 “traveled to both bowl games with the football team and other Penn State staff, coaches and their families, sharing the same accommodations.”

    Here I part ways with EW, who wrote earlier that Paterno must have forced out Sandusky in the spring of 1999 because of the University Police investigation over Victim # 4: How did Paterno exhibit the slightest concern about Sandusky’s predatory activities if he allowed Sandusky to travel with the team to the Alamo Bowl with the same Victim # 4 just six months after the sacking?

  18. travy says:

    i’ve been trying to do my own amateur sleuthing on how they found out about the crucial victim 2 and was quite pleased to find the intrepid emptywheel is asking the same question. seems strange that the incident that will perhaps take everyone down involves an unknown victim. someone’s talking…

  19. bmaz says:

    @joberly: Yeah, therein lies the real beef with Paterno. And I see no criminal exposure for Paterno (trying to prove perjury and/or aiding and abetting would be beyond difficult; near impossible). But Paterno was the word of god, he could have made sure Sandusky was nowhere near anything to do with Penn State. And he didn’t.

  20. MadDog says:

    @bmaz: I agree. Paterno’s moral judgment is at issue and from his earlier stance this past week of only just resigning at the end of the season, it is apparent to all that he still doesn’t get it.

  21. Peterr says:

    @emptywheel: Few, but that’s beside the point. It’s Sandusky’s cell phone records that are critical.

    Sure, a bunch of his calls will have been to donors. A bunch will have been to the Second Mile office and staffers. A bunch will have been to PSU football people. A bunch will have been to schools where Second Mile is/was active. But then there are those to homes of Second Mile kids. If I’m an investigator, and I’ve discovered a pattern from talking to the known victims of Sandusky’s phone contacts with them, I’m going to want to pore through Sandusky’s phone records to see if there are similar patterns of calls to other kids. If I see thirty calls to one kid’s home, I’m going to want to talk to that kid. Fast.

  22. bmaz says:

    @MadDog: Oh, I think there was probably at least an implicit understanding somewhere that he was going to at least finish out the season and he was operating under that, but things just got accelerated. As Marcy has alluded to, I am not sure even the state intended for all this to spring out as it has. There are a couple of reporters that have been way on top of this (no that noisy Madden radio guy is not particularly one of them), led by Sara Ganin, who have been on the gig since early March. My guess is she kept talking to witnesses and got somebody in the state to leak the GJ report. Then all hell broke loose before they really wanted it to.

  23. travy says:


    i think it’s pretty much s.o.p. at big universities to keep the head football coach protectively out of the loop of anything that happens outside the rule books. having said that, this whole scandal looks like a conspiracy going back at least 15 years, perhaps farther and i don’t think anyone is safe from prosecution at this point.

    i mean, how far and wide does this go? sandusky should have been a top candidate for a head coaching gig yet his name never came up anywhere. was it well known in coaching circles that he was a pedophile? lots of things don’t make sense here.

  24. Govt Mule says:

    @joberly: The scandal persisted precisely because Paterno and others at PSU determined that revealing any details as to why Sandusky “resigned” in 1999 would have tainted the program and the University. It strains credulity that Paterno had no knowledge of Sandusky’s predatory behavior. The resignation itself makes no sense UNLESS it is tied to some prior knowledge of Sandusky. Moreover, don’t you find it curious that Paterno had nothing positive to say about Sandusky when he retired after serving as his assistant for 32 years. It looks even more suspicious when you consider that Sandusky retained many of the perks of employment after the resignation like unlimited access to the athletic facilities, being listed in the faculty as an emeritus, etc.

  25. orionATL says:


    joberly wrote:

    “… When the team went to the 1999 Alamo Bowl (on 12-28-99), he had taken early retirement, forced out by Paterno in May of 1999. The grand jury presentment says Victim 4 “traveled to both bowl games with the football team and other Penn State staff, coaches and their families, sharing the same accommodations.” …”

    this is the single most damning piece of information i have read. it was clear from ew’s reporting, but until joberly put it in words i had not seen the connection.

    this reflects not only on paterno, but on the entire coaching staff on the reasonable assumption that they were a close knit group who knew what was going on with one of their former colleagues, sandusky.

    i would guess this is where liability would most certainly begin for paterno.

  26. joberly says:

    @Govt Mule: Yes. And note that he coached two seasons, fall of ’98 and fall of ’99 after the spring 1998 investigation. Sandusky must have had some leverage over Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier et al, because as you say, he “retained many of the perks of employment.” The grand jury presentment is in the passive voice on this matter: “These and other privileges were negotiated when Sandusky retired in 1999.” Then the voice switches to the direct past tense: “Sandusky continued to use University facilities per his retirement agreement.”

  27. emptywheel says:

    @joberly: First, the victims are almost certainly not listed in order. We know Victim 1 was the first discovered in this investigation, which was in 2008 (I think the county referred charges, and then the state GJ opened in 2009, but in any case, over 2 years ago). We also know they were working on Victim 2’s story in December 2010-January 2011 (not incidentally, perhaps, during the period between when Corbett had won the Governor’s race and when he left the AG office). It would defy belief that they hadn’t found Victim 6 again in the interim period.

    As to your point that Sandusky brought Victim 4 to Alamo after he had been forced out, I agree that’s a significant point. Mind you, he brought him as his family (ugh), not as an official guest. But your point is still significant.

  28. emptywheel says:

    @joberly: Btw, my guess on why the Victims are in the order they’re in is that they started with what started the investigastion, then emphasized PSU’s complicity.

    Also let me note I’m contradicting myself here.

    I assume they found Victim 6 almost immediately.

    That said, I have pointed out they probably have only been investigating Victim 6 for a year, because if it had been longer, presumably BK’s deployment would have ended and he could be subpoenaed (though of course he could be stationed in Germany or Korea on a longer assignment, so that’s not totally clear).

    So maybe my suppositions don’t make sense.

  29. bmaz says:

    @emptywheel: I have no clue, but it is entirely possible that the “victim order” in the GJ report is simply the order that the GJ, for whatever reason, considered them in their deliberations.

  30. Mary McCurnin says:

    I wonder why organizations involving powerful men seem to have pedophilia as part of their core. It isn’t just a Catholic church or college football problem. It is a human being problem. I just looked up the stats in wikipedia.

    In North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.

    I bet a higher percentage of boys are molested. Authority in this culture is horribly distorted. What better way to keep people under control than to molest them. The secrets expand the illness behind it. The pain is palpable but usually unresolved. Pedophilia creates a bond among all of the secret keepers and the authority figures at the very top of the pyramid garner even more power.

    Secrets are power. Pedophilia is power.

  31. joberly says:

    @orionATL: Thank you, and thanks to EW # 36 and # 37. San Antonio P.D. is now investigating Sandusky for the Dec. 1999 trip to the Alamo Bowl with Victim # 4. Shouldn’t Tampa P.D. also open an investigation of Sandusky for taking Victim # 4 the year before (Dec. ’98-Jan. 1, 1999) to the Outback Bowl? That same Victim # 4 had been under Sandusky’s control, even as Sandusky was sexually assaulting Victim # 6 in 1998. How could Penn State officials, starting with Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, have allowed Sandusky to take Victim # 4 to Tampa for the Outback Bowl, even as “family”?

  32. emptywheel says:

    @Peterr: Fair point.

    Though note that his pattern seems to have been 1) note kids while they’re at the Second Mile camp in their second year, 2) start giving the boy special attention. Not all these kids seem to have been abused, and as soon as they resisted, he seems to have stopped trying (though in at least one case, he also stopped inviting them places), and then it moved onto the sleepovers at his house, and then the assaults in the showers.

    I guess one place to start is which boys slept over his house. It’s clear his wife was protecting him, though.

    Incidentally, the grand jury reconsidered claims of abuse the birth mother of a boy first put in the Sandusky home as a foster child, then ultimately adopted (the mother first complained in 1995). Presumably the GJ concluded those claims were not well-founded enough to charge. (And the boy brought his kids over to the Sandusky’s the night the arrests were announced.

  33. emptywheel says:

    @bmaz: Yeah. Everything else considered, I find the story of Victim 4 the most horrific–this kid was basically treated as Sandusky’s literal boy toy over a 3 year period, or longer. The boy was older than the others, so this period spanned the boys puberty.

  34. emptywheel says:

    @Mary McCurnin: The Sanduskys have 6 adopted kids and had a bunch more foster kids over the years. I think that’s what gave him cover for inviting these boys over to sleep at his house all the time.

  35. posaune says:

    @emptywheel: And the birth mom’s visitation rights were limited to 4 hours per month after she complained to CPS and the judge. I think (but not entirely sure) that Sandusky’s took more kids on foster/adopt placement after that. I wonder if the GJ got ahold of their Adoptive Home Study. Someone should get ALL of the County CPS and DHS records for the past 20 years. Jeebus, this could make NYC Child Services look like saints.

    The other thing re Second Mile: how did kids get referred to Second Mile? From school? from CPS? from DHS? from foster/adopt agencies? what were the criteria for “admission?” John Raykovitz, ED of Second Mile, a child psych PhD, should have a LOT of responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes. Wonder if the kids’ parents or guardians had to sign waivers allowing their kids to travel with Sandusky? And what was the referral source for Sandusky’s foster/adopt kids? CPS? DHS? It makes me so sick.

  36. emptywheel says:

    @Mary McCurnin: Oh, and to clarify. In 1995 the mother of a kid who was put in foster care with the Sandusky’s complained about his behavioral problems there. She tried to fight it when the Sanduskys adopted her son, who has since taken the Sandusky’s name. But those allegations were investigated in 1995 and then again by the grand jury. Her son was not included among the victims and her son still treats Sandusky as a father, so it’s possible her allegations were unfounded.

  37. Mary McCurnin says:


    Can you imagine living in that house with that nastiness going on? Being one of the kids not molested takes on a whole other kind of dynamic. I know of a family of victims where the unmolested middle child committed suicide as an adult.

  38. posaune says:

    I’m cross-posting from the last thread here:
    ALL of these people, from the top to the bottom, should be made to witness and live with the detritus and horror of childhood sexual abuse. My husband and I do. Our newly adopted son, who is 6yo, is a victim. He is diagnosed with PTSD, and it is REAL PTSD — flashbacks in entirety. He becomes completely dissociated, distintegrates psychologically, and truly believes he is coming apart. His primary relationships are deeply affected by disorganized attachment, relationships with sibs will take years to understand. Most cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder (aka Multiple Personality) stem from childhood sexual abuse. And it is a long, long road to healing. He is without question the bravest person I have ever known. It is an honor, and unbelievable experience to parent him as he faces one day at a time in recovery.

  39. Masoninblue says:

    Fascinating version of the what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it puzzle.

    I hesitate to draw any conclusions regarding Joe Paterno without knowing why Sandusky “retired” in May, 1999. It’s certainly tempting to assume that Sandusky’s predilections were well known and figured prominently in the matter, but is there more to that story?

    Reading between the lines, looks to me like the police investigation may have been terminated without County Attorney Gricar filing charges because victims BK, 6 and 7 did not specifically claim that Sandusky had touched their privates. Apparently, they did not know about victims 4 (the kid who went to the Alamo and Outback bowls), 5 and 8 until later. Victim 4 suffers ongoing sexual abuse for several years until he finally ends the relationship in his mid teens. Victim 2 is the victim of the sodomy-in-the-shower incident in 2002 witnessed by the graduate assistant, McQuade.

    Was there perhaps some sort of private agreement reached that in exchange for not filing charges in a weak case, Sandusky would agree to retire and voluntarily seek counseling? If so, did Paterno know about it?

    If it was a weak case, would Paterno have known enough to have been on notice that Sandusky was a potential pedophile? After all, Sandusky surrounded himself with “troubled” kids and took his time preselecting his targets. That was part of his cloak of invisibility in broad daylight.

    Also, I can’t figure out why Gary Schultz, the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business at PSU is involved in this matter. Paterno called the Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and tells him what McQuade said. When McQuade meets with Curley, Schultz is there. Why not the President of PSU, or an attorney employed by the university?

    That seems odd to me.

  40. Peterr says:

    @Masoninblue: If you’re an administrator looking to sweep things out of sight, the very last person you want to talk to is the university’s general counsel.

    The absence of the university lawyers from any of the news tells me they were kept out of the loop. Either that, or the prosecutors are looking for evidence to implicate those lawyers in a conspiracy to hide evidence of a crime. My WAG is the former, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it were the latter.

  41. emptywheel says:

    @Masoninblue: Schultz was also in charge of University Police. So he was technically “in charge” of the University investigation in 1998–the one where the detective was told to stop investigating.

  42. emptywheel says:

    @Masoninblue: Also note, either Paterno asked or Curley did to have Schultz brought into the loop in 2002. Read this post for the chronology. But after Paterno told Curley, but before Curley and Schultz heard what McQueary had to say, Paterno told Curley and Schultz what he knew in a separate meeting. (He did not attend the meeting where McQueary told them what he saw).

  43. emptywheel says:

    @Peterr: Just to carry our email convo online here, as I noted, the 1998 incident did get reported through the Counsel the U used, who also happened to be (and still is) counsel for The Second Mile. Guy by the name of Wendell Courtney.

  44. joberly says:

    @posaune: Best wishes to your family, posaune. To Masoninblue #51, and Peterr # 53, Penn State contracted out for legal matters until 2010. The University used a town law firm, McQuaide Blasko, from the 1960s up to 2010 when the University created an in-house office of general counsel. An attorney with McQuaide Blasko, Wendell Courtney, handled Penn State legal matters and later became counsel for Second Mile. He still represented Second Mile as a client until six days ago.

    In other circumstances, I’d agree with you, Peterr that those such as Curley or Schultz trying to cover up would avoid telling the general counsel. In this case, however, the attorney representing the interests of the University and of Second Mile was aware of 1998 investigation.

    I’d like to know if Attorney Courtney, representing Penn State, negotiated the July 1, 1999 retirement agreement with former assistant coach Sandusky? That was the agreement that gave Sandusky “emeritus professor” status and free run of the University facilities.

  45. joberly says:

    @Peterr: Correct. I posted right below you at # 57, Peterr, before I saw yours. Courtney resigned his representation of Second Mile this past Monday.

  46. emptywheel says:

    @joberly: And Courtney’s role may explain why The Second Mile wasn’t informed of this investigation until early this year, which would probably though not definitely put it after Schultz and Curley testified in January.

  47. emptywheel says:

    @joberly: As I noted in the post, Sandusky, Mrs. Sandusky, and “a friend” were trying to contact Victim 7 before he testified (which was probably just as this thing picked up steam).

    I keep wondering who that friend might be. Whether it’s someone like Courtney or something.

  48. bmaz says:

    @joberly: I think it is a pretty fair bet that Courtney negotiated the 1999 Sandusky deal. I think Courtney has real problems and my guess is that he is a rather large part of the “continuing investigation”.

  49. klynn says:

    Late last week, The Second Mile removed the list of honorary directors from its website.

    From the AP article today.

    This is not good news.

  50. klynn says:


    Sandusky, Mrs. Sandusky, and “a friend” were trying to contact Victim 7 before he testified (which was probably just as this thing picked up steam).

    This could make for big problems for them.

  51. emptywheel says:

    @klynn: Hmm. I can’t get anything on it from the Wayback Machine except going way far back. Rather than the archived version, I’m getting the current one, with the statement about Sandusky.

  52. klynn says:


    There are names on that list that knew too much. And they were associated with the non-profit, a non-profit doing outreach to youth knowing what they knew about Sandusky?

    This is so bad. So very, very bad.

    I can understand why there are grumblings that more is about to hit the fan.

  53. bmaz says:

    @emptywheel: The honorary board is rather stunning; huge names.

    @klynn: How do you know they “knew too much”? Other than Sandusky himself and maybe Mrs. Courtney, what evidence is there the others knew anything?

  54. emptywheel says:

    @bmaz: I do find it odd that Internet Archive’s archives are redirected to the current site going back to 2003.

    IA doesn’t just let organizations do that willy nilly–it suggests law enforcement may have asked them to do it.

  55. klynn says:


    I should develop a more “at length” response. Right now, I am so sick by reading certain names on that list that I am lost for words. Although my background is in cross-cultural mediation; that background has taken me into the non-profit sector as a non-profit director of youth-education based outreaches. The level of liability of those on the lists (certain people specifically) you linked to (from 2002) would make for an important post.

  56. Peterr says:

    @emptywheel: The idea that a university of Penn State’s size and complexity would not have its own permanent general counsel, is stunning.

    That they would have the same outside legal representation as Second Mile is . . . unprintable.

  57. klynn says:


    Exactly. That is why this stinks on so many levels. I get why more is about to hit the fan.

    When you add in some of the names on the honorary director’s list and look at the ED as well.

    Again, what I would type would be unprintable as well.

  58. klynn says:


    We should be able get the entire listing/history through the Non-Profit library. Their 990 is filed every year and their 501C3 filing is public record through this organization.

  59. Masoninblue says:

    @bmaz: Yep, that dude had conflicts of interest up the yin yang. He’s in the middle of everything representing everyone, it seems.

    Yee olde, if-I-hide-everything-under-the-rug,-and-keep-the-problem-well-stocked-wid-utes-at-wisk,-I-can-make-the-bad-publicity-go-away was not the correct answer to the ethics question.

    No wonder PSU finally got around to creating an office of General Counsel in 2010.

  60. emptywheel says:

    @bmaz: Well, the same page has the actual board too. (Not sure if the Angel Donors are on the same page or not.)

    So it may be they’re hiding that information.

  61. orionATL says:


    peterr wrote:

    “…That they would have the same outside legal representation as Second Mile is . . . unprintable…”

    what it tells me is that this has been a many-years-running cover-up of a matter (multiple instances of child sexual abuse) representing potential enormous damage to the university’s reputation in general and to that of its football program in particular.

    i suspect we are looking at a very carefully engineered cover-up likely involving many top univ officials and including at least some board members and some penn politicians.

    it’s this kind of situation in which “the rule of law” gets put in a casket and given a fake burial for the duration.

  62. orionATL says:


    we focus on the 1998 to present time period but sandusky had apparently been with paterno for years. did he suddenly develop a taste for boys in 1997?

    most likely his behavior stretches back for decades. paterno would not have known about this for decades?

    it may be that the fact a grad student reported an instance led paterno, the ad, and/or the vp to decide it was too risky to continue to look the other way at sandusky’s perversion.

    that sandusky played around with boys in the univ showers suggests he felt immune to discovery (because every one of importance had known about and tolerated his behavior for decades).

  63. GulfCoastPirate says:

    @orionATL: Wait a minute. You’re talking about a rather large group of people who put the interests of the university and the football program above the interests of young boys who were regularly getting frakked in the ass by one of their own. How can this country have come to this – where that large of a group of people knew and no one had the balls to do the right thing?

  64. freepatriot says:

    I read the statement of fact, & I read that texas now has an active investigation as well as Pennsylvania

    I think two parts of the US code need to be used here:

    18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424) The Mann Act,


    Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968, (RICO)

    I bet a good US Attorney could convict JoPa with a combination of these two laws

    what does our in-house council think of this possibility ???

  65. bmaz says:

    @freepatriot: RICO is not going to apply because the most the other actors can be alleged with is passive knowledge at best. Same is going to be a problem on the Mann Act. It could quite possibly be used against Sandusky, although that is almost overkill at this point, his goose is cooked. But, absent active participation in Sandusky’s scheme, and there is nothing close to establishing that yet, just not gonna fly against Paterno or any of the others.

  66. klynn says:


    What is the role of an honorary board?

    After answering that, one has to ask what made JoPa lend his name with his awareness of Sandusky’s behavior.

  67. posaune says:

    I wonder if any of the victims were “placed” with Sandusky as interim or respite foster placements. If so, every member of the household would have had to complete a yearly Child Protective Clearance. Some states are very strict about it, i.e., Colorado’s regl requires anyone over 16 in contact with a foster or respite placement more than 6 hours per year to complete the CPR-FBI background & fingerprints. If any child was placed, even temporarily, I believe the ICPC would come into effect (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children). Our compact limited our travel to three states with our son (sending state, receiving state, and we had to apply to visit in grandpa’s state).

  68. Sparkles the Iguana says:

    You have to think the number of victims currently known is just the tip of the iceberg. As someone said, you don’t suddenly become a pedophile in your 40s or 50s.

    One of the weirdest, and creepiest, aspects is the role of Mrs. Sandusky. Why? Why in God’s name does a wife and mother allow this to go on? Stockholm syndrome? My brain just doesn’t comprehend.

  69. Sparkles the Iguana says:

    Ripken asks Sandusky’s charity not to use his name on website, in brochures
    Former Orioles star had spoken at a dinner benefiting the Second Mile but had no other affiliation with Pennsylvania group

    On Wednesday, Cal Ripken Jr.’s name appeared on the website of the Second Mile charity under the heading “Board of Directors: Honorary Board.”

    By Thursday, it didn’t.

    Ripken asked the Second Mile, a charity allegedly used by former Penn State football assistant Jerry Sandusky to meet and then molest young boys, to remove his name from its website and all other literature.

    According to spokesman John Maroon, the Hall of Fame former Oriole spoke at an event benefiting the charity but did so at the behest of a corporate partner of the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation. After speaking, Ripken had his name listed on the website but did not do further work with the organization.

  70. Sparkles the Iguana says:

    Former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz also had his name removed from the Second Mile’s site, while legendary golfer Arnold Palmer, Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid and actor Mark Wahlberg did not.

  71. bmaz says:

    @klynn: Unless they have direct authority, which an honorary board likely would not, I doubt they have any responsibility legally and, to any extent they do, it certainly would not be criminal.

  72. Peterr says:

    @orionATL: From the presentment, Sandusky did a lot of this while his wife was out of town or while he was on the road (such as the bowl game stuff).

    Predators like Sandusky are very, very good with explanations. The presentment talks about a wrestling coach walking in on Sandusky and one of the kids: “We were practicing some wrestling moves, coach.” The coach thought it was odd, but only in retrospect did he go “OMG – he’s trying to get into that kid’s pants.” It’s only when they are caught in flagrante delicto that folks around them start to slap their foreheads and say “How could I have missed this?”

    As one who’s done child abuse prevention work, and the cleanup following child abuse (see my FDL post this morning), I’d say that it’s possible that Mrs. Sandusky is complicit, but it’s much more likely that she’s mortified that she didn’t see any signs of this while it happening. “My husband could never do that.” If that’s the case, I hope she’s got a good support system of friends and family. Otherwise, she’s a suicide waiting to happen.

  73. emptywheel says:

    @Peterr: Well, if she’s calling a victim before he testifies telling him it’s really important he call her back, it seems likely Mrs. S was trying to help obstruct the investigation.

  74. klynn says:


    Honorary Board of Directors is a list comprised of high-profile public figures who use their celebrity as a powerful endorsement of an organization’s mission.

    Here are my questions. Was JoPa ever asked to be on the BOD and did he decline opting for the HBOD’s?

    Second, JoPa lent his name as an endorsement of the organization which serves as an endorsement for Sandusky’s charity, a youth outreach charity. He did this with the knowledge of Sandusky’s behavior.

    This is a problem. JoPa lent his name as credibility in order to pull in other high profile names. This is a big problem.

    The whole history of the founding of the organization, Sandusky’s role in building the organization and JoPa’s and any PSU’s backing in building the organization is a liability. It is a youth organization helping at-risk, vulnerable youth.

  75. klynn says:


    This is why I would want to see the original 501c3 filing when the organization was founded as well as early filings of 990’s. Did Courtney file that original 501c3?

  76. orionATL says:


    thanks for your comment.

    almost immediately, i regretted having written “often complicit” – the “often” was not necessary and was beyond my knowledge.

    furthermore, obliviouness on the part of one spouse regarding the other is not uncommon.

    there’s grief enough in matters like this without strangers like myself adding to it.

    nonetheless, this is a speculative space and i added to the speculation by repeating what i had read, that spouses are sometimes complicit in sexual misconduct.

    as for suicide, having children is a powerful motivator to keep on going and keep on living. i have a hard time believing mrs. s. only learned recently of her husband’s pedophilia.

  77. bmaz says:

    @klynn: Nope, while it may have some moral implications, I do not think that is going to go anywhere as to legal liability. I would be much more concerned about Paternos actions in relation to availability of PSU facilities than some piss ant listing on an honorary board. Heck Cal Ripken was listed in the same list and did nothing but appear at a fundraiser or something. That list just doesn’t mean anything legally. There may be other avenues to attack Paterno, but that one is worthless.

  78. bmaz says:

    @emptywheel: Yuk!

    Sandusky writes: “Our relationship floundered, and one problem surfaced after another. It got to the point where the authorities were going to take him away from us.”

    But a judge ruled that Matt would stay with the family, and Sandusky wrote that after withdrawing from him for a while, Matt came back and said, “I love you.”

  79. bmaz says:

    @Sparkles the Iguana: I have only ever seen such a “grand jury report” which apparently is also termed a “presentment” in Pennsylvania, in relation to special statewide investigatory grand juries. But that is apparently exactly what the GJ here was, and from what I can discern, “speaking reports”, i.e. narrative reports, are quite a bit more common in Pennsylvania. To the best I can discern, it recommends charges for the state, via the prosecutor (in this case the AG) to file, but the prosecutor is not mandated to follow the direction. Here, they clearly did.

  80. Peterr says:

    @emptywheel: Predators like Sandusky are very persuasive in having their loved ones look the other way, or even cover their tracks.

    “Honey, there’s a terrible misunderstanding with one of the kids I’ve been trying to help. He and his mom have got this weird idea about me. You know that I’d never do anything to hurt one of these kids. Why, I’ve given hours and hours of my time, as well as thousands and thousands of dollars, to help kids like this. This is such a screwed up family — and these are just the families I’m trying to help. Honey, if you could make this call, it would really make a huge difference . . .”

    She might have been complicit, but it’s more likely she was duped. If so, she’s feeling more regrets than most folks can imagine.

    Or something like that.

  81. P J Evans says:

    I suspect that child molesters in particular must have engaging personalities, just to get children to associate with them. That would probably also make it harder for people to believe what they were doing. (‘He’s so wonderful with kids’ is probably a common description.)

  82. emptywheel says:

    @bmaz: Right. But then on the night Sandusky got arrested, Matt brought his own kids to the house.

    And again, the GJ did investigate that relationship (though admittedly, if Matt supports Sandusky, he may not have testified that willingly).

    I guess adopted kids don’t get any privilege, though, do they?

  83. bmaz says:

    @emptywheel: None of them get privilege except the wife; that does not mean they willingly comply and testify though or that the state will necessarily get rough and make them.

  84. posaune says:

    We haven’t, but trips need to be signed off, with contact info and limited number of days.
    Another law (not likely, but who knows ??) that may be involved Pennsylvia UCCJEA cit. st 23PA.Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5401 et. seq.
    Has to do with child custody and the official domicile (most commonly used for revengeful spouses, post-divorce abductions). I do know that this has been used in a wide variety of cases, including Intl Adoption.

  85. orionATL says:

    i would guess the “board of visitors”, or whatever they call it at penn state, had to approve sandusky’s early retirement. usually, a univ board has to approve every personnel action, though it is only a formal action.

    in the case of a football coach in a major position at the u ( wasn’t penn state famous for its defense?), there is no way a board would have, even formally, approved his change without knowing what was going on, at least thru informal channels.

    there is also no way in my view that the univ counsel (at this time apparently on retainer from a private law firm) would not have been involved in sandusky’s “change of status” from football coach to faculty member. there are too many treacheries a state institution could get involved in without good counsil.

    my overall hypothesis is that a LOT of psu employees, including at the highest levels, plus board members, were likely very knowledgeable about the outlines of the “sandusky problem”,

    and knowlwdgeable over several years.

  86. bmaz says:

    @orionATL: I think there is a pretty big difference between heard a third hand rumor and “were very knowledgeable”. And I doubt very many, if any will be admitting it and trying to prove it is WAY harder than you think.

  87. orionATL says:


    why would a parent insert his children into such a situation?

    answer: because he was asked to by his “mom” (as a pr ploy),

    rather like dialing up potential gj witness.

  88. orionATL says:


    and there is a very big difference between understanding in dwtail exactly what happened andnin what order (my interest)

    and legal action against an individual.

    the institution, penn state, benefits not at all by legal actions against individuals,

    but it might benefit greatly by knowing exactly who did what, and when they did it.

    the public policy part of this would view sandusky the person as simply a data point.

    the real issues for the institution involves learning which of their officials, if any, acted to deal appropriately with the entirety of the “sandusky problem”,

    and which did not.

    expect an investigating commission to be appointed which will
    issue a one-page, double-spaced report in 2015.



    then there is the ncaa.

    what sanctions!

  89. posaune says:

    An intersting thought: who wrote the personal references for Sandusky’s Adoptive Home Study? Most states require 3-5 written references. Usually, an employer letter is given. And did the Sandusky’s receive foster/adoptive monthly subsidies? Is that FOIA-able, bmaz? If those kids were placed with Sandusky’s on a handshake, WOW.

  90. John Casper says:

    I have no evidence, but I believe strongly that that Penn State used Sandusky as a way to get around NCAA recruiting regulations. The curious case of a 2012 recruit and Jerry Sandusky. It wasn’t that JoePa wasn’t paying attention. It’s that Sandusky provided too much value* in terms of their recruiting efforts.

    If true, this would explain why JoePa let him have the office in the football office. He needed that as “street cred,” with young kids who PSU thought might grow into blue-chip prospects. Recruiting is the life-blood of any college football program. Getting to the kids when they’re young is a huge advantage. Most of the blue-chippers come from poor neighborhoods.

    I doubt Sandusky was trying to have sex with the kind of blue-chip athletes who Penn State wanted, but he did promise one kid a shot as a walk-on.

    The NCAA only permits eleven coaches on a D1 staff. No one else is allowed to recruit. The times when those coaches can have contact with recruits is very closely monitored. There are periods where face-to-face contact is allowed, periods where only phone contact is allowed, and periods where no contact is permitted. Sandusky was operating outside those boundaries.

    As others above have already commented, we know Sandusky had very suicidal ideation at least as far back as 1998, but it probably goes back further. One of the things that may have kept him from acting on that was that JoePa kept affirming that he was making a contribution. My guess is that Jack Raykovitz, PhD, the President of the Foundation may have played a very enabling role. They only worked with kids they thought were “at-risk.” Their testimony is already suspect.

    OT, I think the reason the Judge released Sandusky is because Penn State and all the enablers are praying that he commits suicide. Jason Berry first described this tactic in his “Lead Us Not Into Temptation.” The Roman Catholic hierarchy used it against priests, AFTER the media released the story.

    *Part of that value might have been in film evaluation. With kids this young, there frequently isn’t any film. It’s very likely Sandusky had the skill to “project” what young kids were mostly likely to “develop.” That’s a huge help to any program, because you don’t waste time and resources.

  91. John Casper says:

    Just by way of background, MLB franchises are not as lucrative as NFL franchises because MLB never was able to “socialize” their player development costs onto the taxpayers. MLB baseball owners have to fund their own farm teams.

    The taxpayers over the decades built up the brands of college football and basketball, because they thought “team sports” contributed to higher education: Dwight David Eisenhower played football at Army…… Once Athletic Departments began to generate cash, they were “privatized.” The taxpayers never “cashed out” as the shareholders who built the brands. The schools get zero direct income from the Athletic Departments. They get publicity and alums donate more to the academic side. All the cash is sucked up by coaching/AD salaries, facilities (which rival what the NFL franchises have for weights, film study, and meeting rooms), and the final black hole, recruiting. Millions are spent by EVERY football factory chasing down the 700 or so best athletes/football players that graduate from high school each year. FWIW, schools up north are at a huge disadvantage. Most of the best players come from Florida, Texas, California, and other places with warm winters. It’s tougher for northern schools to lure those players north. It’s easier for the northern schools to lose their best athletes to schools with a nice winter.

    Last year the UFL (United Football League) was charging the NFL a $150,000 transfer fee, per player. The NCAA, because they let in anyone who looks like they might have a shot at the NFL, should get double that from the NFL owners. Just like crooked union bosses, the college presidents take kickbacks from the MOTU to keep the entitlement programs going for NFL owners. See all the money (millions) G. Gordon Gee (still the President of Ohio State) made from running the “Safety” committee for Massey Energy. Gee is one lucky SOB. The greens finally forced him out in 2008. In 2009, 29 miners were murdered in a Massey mine in WV.

  92. orionATL says:

    @John Casper:

    john casper,

    thank you for addressing this missing (ncaa) piece of the puzzle.

    when (mostly poor) kids have to hold their hands out, palm up, to be slapped hard by sister ncaa’s wooden ruler,

    it will be interesting to see what ncaa does, if anything, with an extremely well-known, popular, wealthy major football program which has covered up an extensive personal history of predatory sexual behavior toward young males.

    this penn state “problem” presebts a super-major, double-triple overtime problem for the ncaa in its role as the guardian of corruption in big-time, big-money college football.

  93. joberly says:

    Back to the Penn State administrators and what they did to cover up for Sandusky. I assumed that in 2002, the athletic director called the vice president for administration on hearing of McQueary’s witnessing the rape in the football building because that was the reporting line.
    A look at the organizational chart of Penn State shows my assumption is wrong: Intercollegiate Athletics reports directly to the President. I wonder if the prosecutors asked Curley why he went sideways to involve Schultz, and not directly to his boss, President Spanier?

    Speaking of going sideways on the part of the AD, another person at Penn State directly reporting to the president is the NCAA faculty representative. There is a new (2010) faculty member in the job, and before her, a guy held it for two 5-year terms. Before him, one guy served as faculty rep for 30 years, 1970-2000, pretty much the Sandusky era as a PSU coach. I wonder what, if anything, the faculty rep did in the 1990s?

  94. bmaz says:

    @orionATL: I am just not sure the NCAA has a lot of jurisdiction here except for under general “don’t make the NCAA look bad” provisions. It is not really an “institutional control” in the common sense they generally enforce. Now maybe they make an exception, but it will be charting new ground, and I don’t know about that.

    Now if, however, the recruiting dodge facts John mentioned can be proved up (and I have seen rumors on that), then the NCAA might hammer them. Short of that, I dunno though. Yet to be seen, but maybe not as easy as most assume.

  95. bmaz says:

    @John Casper: Uh, that is NOT a loophole, that is the fucking letter of the statute. NEVER rely on anything that senile old fucking goat idiot Lester Munson says. Dude is literally a blithering idiot.

  96. John Casper says:


    Appreciate the heads up on Lester. I know ESPN wanted you to think Lester wrote it, putting Lester’s photo up. Not that it matters, but I think the author is Tom Farrey.

    Even sports blogs like Deadspin missed the Penn Live reporting in April. One of many reasons I hope you and Marcy have the resources to stay on this, is because imho it so effectively exposes the complicity of the corporate media. I think the ESPN slant on this is helpful in showing how isolated Penn State and the enablers are. That, however, isn’t a legal issue and I was remiss in not adding that context.

    I think your point is also supported by the “80-years in jail,” comment. No “innocent until proven guilty.” IMHO, they’re using the media to send a message to Sandusky to kill himself. If that doesn’t work, the message is going out to all the gun nuts in PA who want to save the taxpayers the costs associated with a trial.

  97. orionATL says:


    thanks for this new info.

    this may explain why spanier was tossed better than any “he just
    didn’t solve the problem” explanation.

    sounds like it’s possible that spanier just might have arranged to have others help him duck the problem.

    the info on the “ncaa faculty rep” is the first i have seen. i wonder what the faculty rep actually does?

    want to bet the original (30 yr) rep worked in the athletic dept or in “health and p. e.”?

  98. bmaz says:

    @John Casper: Aw crikey, you are right. Saw Munson’s mug and went off. I have a bug about that guy, he is just horrible. Their other “legal analyst”, Roger Cossack is usually actually quite good, but not Munson. I imagine we will keep our eye on this one, it is kind of attractive on both the legal and sports front. That’s hard to pass up!

  99. emptywheel says:

    @joberly: Again, Schultz is head of University police. So if Curley wanted UP to get involved–or to absolve himself of not getting them involved, he might go to Schultz.

    Of course, it’s possible that’s where the nexus of this information is.

  100. travy says:

    anyone think mcqueary may be talking about more than we think? we were discussing this at lg&m in a post about ‘scapegoating’ and there is a lot of anger justifiably directed at mcqueary for his actions, but it does appear he is the only one who testified in full detail about the shower rape he witnessed. everyone else downplayed the it by calling it horsing around or just fondling and mcqueary could have easily aligned his story with his superiors or given them cover but he didn’t. he pretty much hung them out to dry. to me, it appears he is acting out of conscience at this point which could be bad for penn state.

    so how did the prosecution find mcqueary and is he talking about more than just the shower incident?

  101. John Casper says:


    It’s a critical question.

    IMHO, McQueary knows a lot about the general knowledge within the football program. In ’98 Sandusky was at the top of his profession, yet no AD in college football hired him. People outside Happy Valley knew there were serious skeletons. Back in 2005 a couple of Penn State players were suspended for prank phone calls to a “retired” football coach. One of those was NFL linebacker Dan Connor. Now Connor, along with everyone else is claiming they had no knowledge.

  102. joberly says:

    @orionATL: Yes, the faculty home of the current (since 2010) NCAA faculty rep, Dr. Caldwell, is in “recreation, park, and tourism management.” The previous rep (2000-2010) came from the Dept. of Kinesiology (Phy Ed). The 30-year guy had an appointment in the College of Business.

    You ask what the faculty rep does. The job description says that the faculty rep to the NCAA is responsible for reviewing the eligibility for student-athletes under NCAA, Big Ten, and University regulations.

    Upon appointing Dr. Caldwell in 2010, former president Spanier said:

    ” ‘The media and the public spend an enormous amount of time focused on the coaches for our intercollegiate athletic teams, but this is actually one of the most important appointments a university can make related to its athletic program,’ according to Penn State President Graham Spanier.”

  103. joberly says:

    @emptywheel: Aye, understood, about University Police reporting to Schultz. But note that University Police has its own chief and also its own asst. vice president. In other words, when Paterno summoned Curley the Sunday after McQueary witnessed the Friday night rape, Curley jumped two rungs up the ladder in his reaction. He jumped over the University police chief, and he jumped over the asst. vp in charge of police & public safety.

  104. klunkerman says:

    Any organization with assets and income of Penn State U and its athletic department has a legal staff or certainly access to one. Did ANY of the multiple witnesses or informed managers including Board Members seek counsel from the University’s legal staff? If not why?
    Could this be a much, much larger criminal enterprise than has emerged so far?

  105. joberly says:

    @klunkerman: For answers to your question, see the comments on the history of the same firm serving as outside counsel to the University and also to Second Mile, starting with Peterr’s comment @ # 53.

  106. emptywheel says:

    @travy: He may be.

    Don’t forget that McQueary is from State College originally. So he grew up there, played high school football locally, then went to PSU, then returned after 3 years of pro play. Two years later was the rape incident.

    McQueary may have played high school ball w/Sandusky’s kids, would have presumably followed the program religiously in high school, and just entering PSU’s program when many of these victims were being abused in the 1994-1997 time frame. Though he wouldn’t have overlapped, at all as far as I can tell, with Victim 4, the most obvious victim.

  107. emptywheel says:

    @travy: And note, though I’ve said it before, PSU appears to be treating McQueary legally like a whistleblower; they’re not w/JoePa, who is a witness against the program.

  108. Timbo says:

    Did the Sanduskys adopt any more kids after the 1998 investigation? Someone should take a strong look at the Second Mile Foundation…followed by possibly a stronger look.

  109. orionATL says:


    mcqueary was a townie, eh. in small towns with a university, everybody knows everything about faculty and univ affairs. mcqueary probably knew what was what at the athletic dept by the time he finished high school. he could be a tough witness to shake.

  110. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: Eh. My mom was a townie in that same town and I can assure you she knew fuckall about what was going on in the athletic department (likewise, I can assure you that teaching athletes at UM didn’t give me much insight into what went on in individual programs). It’s simply too easy to say everyone knows everything.

    That said, I do think it likely as a football player in that small town, who either played on the same team as or against Sandusky’s sons (among other kids, Sandusky has one son a year older, and two–one of whom is the one whose mother complained–two years younger than McQueary) he’d be in much closer contact with some of the boys in question. Indeed, it’s not impossible that McQueary had contact with the Second Mile kids in local football events. So in the same way some of these Second Mile kids knew each other, it’s possible McQueary knew them (though he’s older than all of them).

  111. orionATL says:


    first, i don’t know what your mom knew and i doubt you do either since you either weren’t around or were a child.

    second, you did not grow up in ann arbor as mcqueary did in state college, pa

    third, ann arbor is anything but a small town.

    fourth, i repeat from personal experience, in a small town with a university, faculty and univ affairs are widely known and “secrets” routinely traded in private conversations.

    fifth, it was not necessary to be quite so literal about my use of “everybody”.

  112. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: I just think it’s the height of irresponsibility to sow “everyone knows” theories, particularly in this case where, there are much more logical explanations for who might know and how that would, at the same time, inform our discussion.

  113. orionATL says:


    that is a thoughtful comment.


    as for “sowing” theories, the nytimes, the whitehouse, or emptywheel might have sufficient influence to “sow” a theory,

    but no comment by orion in any venue is ever likely to sow any theory with anyone. your readers are very discerning people; i trust their good judgement.

  114. bmaz says:

    @orionATL: Just to add, I think she also meant her family was from around the Centre County area around Penn State, not Ann Arbor where she only was later life for a few years.

  115. orionATL says:


    thanks, bmaz.

    i have no idea what ew meant or thought.

    my working assumption is that “serious people” got to her – whether her family, family of those involved, penn state boosters, or more serious (political, legal) folk in penn politics.

    what i do know is that the queen of speculation in journalism – “wild arssed guess”, “in the weeds” – is in no position to lecture others on “responsibility” in commentary, as if she were sister Maggie McGlug lecturing at the girls school.

    the choice of a form of the word “responsibility” in this context is the choice of a key word in the lexicon of the “serious people”, always used censoriously, and intended to be intimidating of speech.

  116. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: Um, it’s very simple.

    There are very easy explanations–with some basis in fact–for why McQueary might have first hand knowledge of Sandusky. Turns out even more so–since his folks are friends with the Sanduskys.

    It is, however, irresponsible to claim that an entire town of 40,000 people would have such knowledge. Because it simply is not the case. No matter what your experience is in a medium sized college town, it is not universal. Nor is it necessary–unless you want to assume guilty until proven innocent about a bunch of people who would have no reason to know about Sandusky.

    I raised personal reasons why you’re wrong–about stuff I didn’t know about students I taught, for example. You think your baseless assumption is true nevertheless.

  117. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: Also, when I make wildarsed guesses, I present evidence. What you did is say, “an entire town is guilty because I say so.” When, again, you could have instead said (as I was) that there was reason why McQueary himself might have unique knowledge.

  118. orionATL says:


    i don’t like using valley talk, ew, but here goes –

    uhm, it’s very simple ew.

    you interpreted what i said in an extremely strange, literal, way for reasons i cannot fathom.

    you write:

    “…What you did is say, “an entire town is guilty because I say so.”..”

    you have completely misinterpreted what i said.

    you rarely make a mistake this stupid, ew, so i assume your emotions led you astray. that is understandable.

    but you can expect that I am not going to stand around reading your inaccurate (or is it self-serving to cover your initial error, ew) portrayal of my comments.

    here is what i wrote in its entirety:

    ‘… orionATL on November 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm said:

    mcqueary was a townie, eh. in small towns with a university, everybody knows everything about faculty and univ affairs. mcqueary probably knew what was what at the athletic dept by the time he finished high school. he could be a tough witness to shake.”

    the meaning of that paragraph is quite clear. folks in small towns with colleges know what is going on thru gossip.

    any assumption you make that this comment indicts an entire town is –

    1) your assumption


    2) either a very literal, or a very stupid, or a very malign interpretation of what i wrote.

    i know the small town with a univ from personal experience. i wrote from that experience. my comment was accurate.

    you interpretation of my comment as condemning an entire town is, at best, a bizarre misreading.

  119. MadDog says:

    @emptywheel: Looks like you are still responding on this thread (hopefully), so I thought I’d just mention that Lawrence O’Donnell just had both Bob Costas and former Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Ed Rendell on his show regarding today’s Bob Costas/Sandusky radio interview.

    I state this as just my ordinary skepticism and suspicion, but it seemed to me that a political “redline” had been agreed to beforehand in regard to Lawrence O’Donnell’s questions to former Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Ed Rendell.

    The political “redline” was that Lawrence O’Donnell would not ask Ed Rendell, if as Governor of Pennsylvania from January 21, 2003 until January 18, 2011 during some of the Attorney General’s (now Governor himself, Tom Corbett) investigation of Sandusky, whether Ed Rendell himself in his position as Governor during that time or as a member of the Penn State Board of Trustees during that time, had known about any of the charges or the AG investigation of Sandusky.

    Again, I want to make clear that I have no knowledge that Ed Rendell had such information.

    My reason for commenting on this particular aspect is as follows:

    If Ed Rendell didn’t know about any of the Sandusky charges or investigations, he should say so explicitly.

    To my knowledge, Ed Rendell has not stated he had no knowledge explicitly, and I find it strange that he has not.

    I can understand that it is normal for a politician of any stripe to avoid any and all connections to anything unsavory or illegal. That’s just the way politicians function.

    But I do find it strange that this very basic question hasn’t been asked by the MSM, and explicitly answered by Ed Rendell.

  120. orionATL says:

    ew wrote:

    “…it is, however, irresponsible to claim that an entire town of 40,000 people would have such knowledge…”

    oh, come on, ew! this is so f***kin’ disingenuous of you that it shakes my confidence in you as a person of great intellectual integrity.

    there is no way in hell that you could believe that i would believe a statement like that.

    something is wrong here, ew, very wrong.

    you know what it is.

  121. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: Well, then your response to mine was BS. I countered with evidence that your claim “everybody knows everything about faculty and univ affairs” was untrue based on the fact that even those within universities are not necessarily party to such gossip.

    If you didn’t mean the “everybody knows everything” literally, you would not have retorted to my comment the way you did. You did (even making a snide comment about my mom, as if I don’t know the kind of information she would have learned growing up in this very same small town).

    If you meant your comment figuratively, maybe you should not have suggested I don’t know my own mother?

  122. emptywheel says:

    @orionATL: Right. You suggested I have no way of knowing what my mother would have known, in spite of experiencing a lifetime of discussions between her and her siblings, who also grew up in that same town, about their experience of State College.

  123. Sparkles the Iguana says:

    Paterno Turns Home Over to Wife for $1
    By MARK VIERA and PETE THAMEL 16 minutes ago

    The former Penn State football coach gave full ownership of his house to his wife, Sue, for $1 in July. (NYTimes)

Comments are closed.