Penn State whistleblower awarded $7.3M in defamation case

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- A jury awarded a former Penn State assistant football coach $7.3 million in damages Thursday, finding the university defamed him after it became public that his testimony helped prosecutors charge Jerry Sandusky with child molestation.

Jurors deliberated for about four hours in Mike McQueary’s defamation and misrepresentation suit.

Judge Thomas Gavin still must decide the whistleblower claim that McQueary was treated unfairly as the school suspended him from coaching duties, placed him on paid administrative leave, barred him from team facilities and then did not renew his contract shortly after he testified at Sandusky’s 2012 trial.

McQueary remained stoic as the verdict was read, and he and his lawyers gave no comment to reporters as they left the courthouse.

Penn State lawyers also didn’t comment after the ruling.

McQueary had been seeking more than $4 million in lost wages and other damages, saying he was defamed by a statement the school president released the day Sandusky was charged, retaliated against for helping with the Sandusky investigation and misled by school administrators.

Sandusky, a former defensive coach at Penn State, was convicted in 2012 of sexual abuse of 10 boys and is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence. He maintains his innocence.

“He should not have been the scapegoat,” lawyer Elliot Strokoff said in closing arguments.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, Penn State attorney Nancy Conrad emphasized that McQueary had said he was damaged by public criticism that he did not to go to police or child-welfare authorities when he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in a team shower in 2001. Instead he reported it the next day to then-head coach Joe Paterno.

“Mr. McQueary was not damaged by any action of the university,” Conrad argued. “Mr. McQueary, as he testified and as he recognized, if he was harmed, was harmed by national media and public opinion.”

McQueary testified he has not been able to find work, either in coaching or elsewhere, but Conrad blamed that on an inadequate network of contacts and the lack of a national reputation.

McQueary was not allowed to coach in the school’s first game after Paterno was fired, a home loss to Nebraska.

“That sends a very clear signal to those in your network that the university doesn’t want you to be supported,” Strokoff said. “’Stay away, you’re a nonperson.’”

Penn State has argued it put McQueary on leave out of safety concerns, as threats were fielded by the university.

fully deserved. the cult turned on their judas and time to pay up. now well up over $100M paid out for something they contend never happened. sick fn nitters

The call has been placed. He'll be along shortly with jopawasinnocent.org links.

That guy should of been awarded 73 million bucks.. it pathetic that there wasent a Punitive aspect to this shit!

Whistleblower , or liar, compulsive gambler and pervert ?

The Mike McQueary $7.3 Million Civil Trial Verdict is Soul-Crushingly Insane
https://t.co/CmETKSOyr9

RunLeeRun said:

The call has been placed. He'll be along shortly with jopawasinnocent.org links.

Click to expand...

winner

brucefan said:

Whistleblower , or liar, compulsive gambler and pervert ?

The Mike McQueary $7.3 Million Civil Trial Verdict is Soul-Crushingly Insane
https://t.co/CmETKSOyr9

Click to expand...

The Mike McQueary $7.3 Million Civil Trial Verdict is Soul-Crushingly Insane

by John Ziegler | 10:45 am, October 28th, 2016
56
<!-- PerfectMarket --
<!-- End PerfectMarket --> <!-- LawNewz (468x60) --> <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="width: 468px; height: 60px; display: none;" data-ad-slot="1182617269" data-ad-client="ca-pub-2481039736505649" abp="100"></ins> <!-- end post-heading -->




<!--
-->


Yesterday, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary won a civil trial verdict against his former employer for defamation and misrepresentation against him due to his role as the only witness in the Jerry Sandusky criminal case. While he was originally seeking four million dollars, the jury of eight women and four men awarded McQueary over seven million.
This verdict is nonsensical at every level and should offend the sensibilities of everyone who cares about justice. It should also scare the crap out of any institution which deals with children and their potential abuse.
While I have no connection to Penn State, I have covered the so-called “Penn State Scandal” as closely as anyone in the world and I believe that I know more about the real story there than even Jerry Sandusky (who I have interviewed in prison multiple times) does. While I strongly believe that the narrative in the case accepted as “conventional wisdom” by the news media is very wrong, the verdict in the McQueary case is completely insane even if everything most people believe about the case is actually true.
In short, McQueary had absolutely no legal, or even moral, case here. What happened was that the jury pool has been so polluted by five years of over-the-top media coverage condemning Penn State (much of it self-inflicted because the university has accepted, for PR purposes, blame and responsibility for things they didn’t do) that they clearly just felt sorry for the former coach who is now un-hirable because of his connection to the “scandal.”
McQueary’s claim was based on two elements. The first is that Penn State defamed him by originally backing the two administrators who were charged in the case with obstructing the Sandusky investigation (five years later, there has never been a trial on those allegations and almost all of those charges have since been dropped).
This assertion is absurd on its face. McQueary was neither named in the statement by Penn State’s then President Graham Spanier, nor, according to Spanier’s consistent and un-contradicted testimony, was his identity even known to Spanier at that time (one of the key facts people would be stunned to know is that at the time of Sandusky’s arrest, not only did Penn State’s president not know McQueary was the witness, but Sandusky did not either).
How in the world can someone, especially a public figure as McQueary clearly was, be defamed when their identity is neither known, nor even mentioned, by the people whose statement was allegedly defamatory? Perhaps even more troubling, how the heck is simply defending the presumption of innocence of one party (the two charged, and then highly respected, Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz) “defamation” against someone whose testimony in a grand jury was in conflict with them? The mind truly boggles at the potential dangers of such a precedent being set here.
The second key element of McQueary’s lawsuit was that Penn State made a misrepresentation to him about how they would handle his report of having “seen” (actually, more accurately, heard) Jerry Sandusky taking a naked shower alone with a boy on Penn State’s campus. However, there is not a shred of evidence which was presented to suggest that this was the case and, in fact, there was plenty of information provided, including by McQueary and those testifying on his behalf, that this allegation is false (it should also be pointed out that McQueary’s claim here is NOT that he was forced to be part of a cover up, which pretty much destroys the entire cover-up theory because he is the only witness in the case and it’s not much of a cover up without that person).
McQueary’s own father testified, along with family friend who is a doctor, that nothing Mike told them the night of the episode indicated that it was “sexual,” or that he should go the police. That is why the plan was devised for him to call head coach Joe Paterno the next day. This alone would seem to discredit any notion that McQueary told the administrators something which demanded that they do more than what they did in response to his description (which, contrary to popular/media belief, was report it to Sandusky’s employer, The Second Mile charity, which knew very well the almost fourteen-year-old kid who was with Sandusky at that time).
However, even if we presume (without evidence) that the testimony of Curley and Schultz saying that what McQueary reported was not remotely criminal is worthless because they are protecting themselves, there is still plenty to discredit Mike’s allegation. Specifically, Penn State’s legal counsel testified at the civil trial that he was told right after McQueary’s meeting with Paterno (which was immediately relayed by Paterno to his superiors) that Mike’s report was of “horseplay.”
But most damning to McQueary’s claim are his own words. An email was presented in this trial which McQueary sent to the Attorney General’s office after the grand jury presentment was leaked indicating that Mike had witnessed “anal rape.” In that email, McQueary complains that his words had been “twisted” in the presentment and he would later testify several times that he did NOT see “anal rape” (importantly, Sandusky was found not guilty of that charge at his trial) and to this day doesn’t even seem to know what supposedly sexual act he witnessed. If McQueary has a case for defamation, ironically, it might be against the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General for making it seem that he saw the rape of a child and ran away to tell his daddy.
But the most devastating evidence against McQueary’s claim that his report back in the 2001 (tellingly, McQueary got the date, the month, and the year of the episode dead wrong in his first two testimonies) contained some sort of horrific sex act, comes from his own testimony in December of 2011. At a preliminary hearing he claimed that he had told people in the football program that Sandusky should not be hanging out around the locker room. That sounds like really solid evidence that he really did see/hear/report something awful. However, on cross-examination, McQueary admitted that he only started to feel that way ten years later AFTER investigators had come to him for help in a sex abuse inquiry against Sandusky. Clearly, McQueary’s view of what he had witnessed had changed dramatically in the ensuing decade.
It appears that the jury, brainwashed by five years of awful media coverage, simply presumed facts never presented and assumed that the Penn State administrators had already been convicted of crimes (which they never will be). In short, Penn State is “bad” and McQueary is “good” because he helped bring the horrible Loch Less Monster that was Jerry Sandusky to justice. Clearly motivated by sympathy/emotion rather than logic/law, they gave him five million dollars in punitive damages, even though the evidence at trial overwhelming indicated that when he was let go from his job along with the vast majority of the staff after Paterno’s shocking firing, it was purely for football reasons and had nothing to do with his role in the Sandusky case.
So, in the end, Mike McQueary, a guy who, at best, saw something bad happened to a kid, ran away without doing anything at all to get the boy out of danger, and did a poor job of articulating to superiors what he supposedly witnessed, is rewarded with an over seven million dollar judgment. So now I guess anyone who says anything at all to a superior remotely about child abuse which doesn’t result in an immediate arrest can sue over a decade later if the person they report ends up getting convicted of such crimes? Gee, that doesn’t sound like a Pandora’s Box just waiting to be opened!
Of all the insane-making elements of this unjust verdict, the most bizarre is that McQueary is now owed over twice as much money by Penn State as the boy (so-called “Victim 2” who has given numerous statements saying he was not abused in the shower and who was never called to testify at Sandusky’s trial). Think about that. The guy who, at best, botched witnessing and reporting the event, may get twice as much money as the person Penn State paid for being the kid who was there that night (and allegedly the victim)!
By the way, next Friday, that now twenty-eight-year-old man is scheduled to finally testify for the very first time in during Sandusky’s next appeal hearing. I plan on being there. If he tells the truth about that night then the complete insanity of the McQueary civil verdict will be breathtakingly obvious, maybe even to the completely clueless news media covering this case.
[image via screenshot Fox 43]
—
This is an opinon piece. The views expressed in this article are of this author.
John Ziegler is a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com

brucefan said:

The Mike McQueary $7.3 Million Civil Trial Verdict is Soul-Crushingly Insane

by John Ziegler | 10:45 am, October 28th, 2016
56
<!-- PerfectMarket --
<!-- End PerfectMarket --> <!-- LawNewz (468x60) --> <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="width: 468px; height: 60px; display: none;" data-ad-slot="1182617269" data-ad-client="ca-pub-2481039736505649" abp="100"></ins> <!-- end post-heading -->




<!--
-->

Yesterday, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary won a civil trial verdict against his former employer for defamation and misrepresentation against him due to his role as the only witness in the Jerry Sandusky criminal case. While he was originally seeking four million dollars, the jury of eight women and four men awarded McQueary over seven million.
This verdict is nonsensical at every level and should offend the sensibilities of everyone who cares about justice. It should also scare the crap out of any institution which deals with children and their potential abuse.
While I have no connection to Penn State, I have covered the so-called “Penn State Scandal” as closely as anyone in the world and I believe that I know more about the real story there than even Jerry Sandusky (who I have interviewed in prison multiple times) does. While I strongly believe that the narrative in the case accepted as “conventional wisdom” by the news media is very wrong, the verdict in the McQueary case is completely insane even if everything most people believe about the case is actually true.
In short, McQueary had absolutely no legal, or even moral, case here. What happened was that the jury pool has been so polluted by five years of over-the-top media coverage condemning Penn State (much of it self-inflicted because the university has accepted, for PR purposes, blame and responsibility for things they didn’t do) that they clearly just felt sorry for the former coach who is now un-hirable because of his connection to the “scandal.”
McQueary’s claim was based on two elements. The first is that Penn State defamed him by originally backing the two administrators who were charged in the case with obstructing the Sandusky investigation (five years later, there has never been a trial on those allegations and almost all of those charges have since been dropped).
This assertion is absurd on its face. McQueary was neither named in the statement by Penn State’s then President Graham Spanier, nor, according to Spanier’s consistent and un-contradicted testimony, was his identity even known to Spanier at that time (one of the key facts people would be stunned to know is that at the time of Sandusky’s arrest, not only did Penn State’s president not know McQueary was the witness, but Sandusky did not either).
How in the world can someone, especially a public figure as McQueary clearly was, be defamed when their identity is neither known, nor even mentioned, by the people whose statement was allegedly defamatory? Perhaps even more troubling, how the heck is simply defending the presumption of innocence of one party (the two charged, and then highly respected, Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz) “defamation” against someone whose testimony in a grand jury was in conflict with them? The mind truly boggles at the potential dangers of such a precedent being set here.
The second key element of McQueary’s lawsuit was that Penn State made a misrepresentation to him about how they would handle his report of having “seen” (actually, more accurately, heard) Jerry Sandusky taking a naked shower alone with a boy on Penn State’s campus. However, there is not a shred of evidence which was presented to suggest that this was the case and, in fact, there was plenty of information provided, including by McQueary and those testifying on his behalf, that this allegation is false (it should also be pointed out that McQueary’s claim here is NOT that he was forced to be part of a cover up, which pretty much destroys the entire cover-up theory because he is the only witness in the case and it’s not much of a cover up without that person).
McQueary’s own father testified, along with family friend who is a doctor, that nothing Mike told them the night of the episode indicated that it was “sexual,” or that he should go the police. That is why the plan was devised for him to call head coach Joe Paterno the next day. This alone would seem to discredit any notion that McQueary told the administrators something which demanded that they do more than what they did in response to his description (which, contrary to popular/media belief, was report it to Sandusky’s employer, The Second Mile charity, which knew very well the almost fourteen-year-old kid who was with Sandusky at that time).
However, even if we presume (without evidence) that the testimony of Curley and Schultz saying that what McQueary reported was not remotely criminal is worthless because they are protecting themselves, there is still plenty to discredit Mike’s allegation. Specifically, Penn State’s legal counsel testified at the civil trial that he was told right after McQueary’s meeting with Paterno (which was immediately relayed by Paterno to his superiors) that Mike’s report was of “horseplay.”
But most damning to McQueary’s claim are his own words. An email was presented in this trial which McQueary sent to the Attorney General’s office after the grand jury presentment was leaked indicating that Mike had witnessed “anal rape.” In that email, McQueary complains that his words had been “twisted” in the presentment and he would later testify several times that he did NOT see “anal rape” (importantly, Sandusky was found not guilty of that charge at his trial) and to this day doesn’t even seem to know what supposedly sexual act he witnessed. If McQueary has a case for defamation, ironically, it might be against the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General for making it seem that he saw the rape of a child and ran away to tell his daddy.
But the most devastating evidence against McQueary’s claim that his report back in the 2001 (tellingly, McQueary got the date, the month, and the year of the episode dead wrong in his first two testimonies) contained some sort of horrific sex act, comes from his own testimony in December of 2011. At a preliminary hearing he claimed that he had told people in the football program that Sandusky should not be hanging out around the locker room. That sounds like really solid evidence that he really did see/hear/report something awful. However, on cross-examination, McQueary admitted that he only started to feel that way ten years later AFTER investigators had come to him for help in a sex abuse inquiry against Sandusky. Clearly, McQueary’s view of what he had witnessed had changed dramatically in the ensuing decade.
It appears that the jury, brainwashed by five years of awful media coverage, simply presumed facts never presented and assumed that the Penn State administrators had already been convicted of crimes (which they never will be). In short, Penn State is “bad” and McQueary is “good” because he helped bring the horrible Loch Less Monster that was Jerry Sandusky to justice. Clearly motivated by sympathy/emotion rather than logic/law, they gave him five million dollars in punitive damages, even though the evidence at trial overwhelming indicated that when he was let go from his job along with the vast majority of the staff after Paterno’s shocking firing, it was purely for football reasons and had nothing to do with his role in the Sandusky case.
So, in the end, Mike McQueary, a guy who, at best, saw something bad happened to a kid, ran away without doing anything at all to get the boy out of danger, and did a poor job of articulating to superiors what he supposedly witnessed, is rewarded with an over seven million dollar judgment. So now I guess anyone who says anything at all to a superior remotely about child abuse which doesn’t result in an immediate arrest can sue over a decade later if the person they report ends up getting convicted of such crimes? Gee, that doesn’t sound like a Pandora’s Box just waiting to be opened!
Of all the insane-making elements of this unjust verdict, the most bizarre is that McQueary is now owed over twice as much money by Penn State as the boy (so-called “Victim 2” who has given numerous statements saying he was not abused in the shower and who was never called to testify at Sandusky’s trial). Think about that. The guy who, at best, botched witnessing and reporting the event, may get twice as much money as the person Penn State paid for being the kid who was there that night (and allegedly the victim)!
By the way, next Friday, that now twenty-eight-year-old man is scheduled to finally testify for the very first time in during Sandusky’s next appeal hearing. I plan on being there. If he tells the truth about that night then the complete insanity of the McQueary civil verdict will be breathtakingly obvious, maybe even to the completely clueless news media covering this case.
[image via screenshot Fox 43]
—
This is an opinon piece. The views expressed in this article are of this author.
John Ziegler is a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com

Click to expand...

:nohead:.......Mr Ziegler used the word 'insane' multiple times in this piece....dont think he sees the irony...........

walk in on the act. let it continue. win 7.3 mil

NBAcapper08 said:

walk in on the act. let it continue. win 7.3 mil

Click to expand...

Our fondest wish always




that this Insanity would stop.

Dude, stop posting Ziegler articles. He is a tin foil hat con artist, a leper messiah for PSU fans.

There may be some debate over JoePa, but Ziegler thinks Sandusky is innocent!!! Is that even up for debate? Is anyone arguing that besides conspiracy theorists like Ziegler? He is a fraud and self promoter.

Brucefan a delusional person. He probably also believes the Clinton's are honest and trustworthy.

texansfan said:

Brucefan a delusional person. He probably also believes the Clinton's are honest and trustworthy.

Click to expand...

lets not get crazy now

best thing that ever happened to him, set for life now

hahahahahahaha

RunLeeRun said:

The call has been placed. He'll be along shortly with jopawasinnocent.org links.

Click to expand...

Ricboff said:

:nohead:.......Mr Ziegler used the word 'insane' multiple times in this piece....dont think he sees the irony...........

Click to expand...

seriously...

I guess Alex Jones wasn't available for comment

Exclusive: Mike McQueary Sent Pictures of His Penis to Joe Amendola's Former Fiance' (NSFW!!)

Submitted by jzadmin on Sat, 04/29/2017 - 08:10 http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclu...es-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw

<fb:share-button class=" fb_iframe_widget" abp="69" type="button_count" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" fb-iframe-plugin-query="app_id=&container_width=0&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.framingpaterno.com%2Fexclusive-mike-mcqueary-sent-pictures-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button_count" href="http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclusive-mike-mcqueary-sent-pictures-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw"><iframe name="f3b71e9ad31196c" width="1000" height="1000" title="fb:share_button Facebook Social Plugin" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=http%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F87XNE1PC38r.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df21cc07a11bbe38%26domain%3Dwww.framingpaterno.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.framingpaterno.com%252Ff2027e1c06d0a86%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.framingpaterno.com%2Fexclusive-mike-mcqueary-sent-pictures-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button_count" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" style="border: currentColor; border-image: none; width: 75px; height: 20px; visibility: visible;" allowtransparency="true" abp="342"></iframe></fb:share-button> In 2012, in my first of what would be dozens of conversations with former Penn State President Graham Spanier, he told me many shocking things about Mike McQueary, the man whose infamous/nonsensical testimony brought down numerous good people and caused enormous harm. One of them was that he believed that when McQueary was contacted in late 2010 by investigators, who were trying to finally find some decent evidence against Jerry Sandusky, that Mike did NOT think that was the reason they wanted to speak to him.

Instead, Spanier told me, McQueary was likely terrified that they wanted to question him. This had nothing to do with Sandusky, but because he had significant past gambling issues and because he had sent naked pictures of his penis, through a Penn State phone, to a woman who was not his wife (he is now divorced). Spainer even gave me the name of a woman who he thought might have been sent those pictures.

The significance of this was immediately obvious to me. If true, it meant that McQueary had lied in his testimony when he claimed that he knew right away that the investigators wanted to talk to him about Sandusky, and that he was glad someone finally was on to Jerry. It also meant that Mike was particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by the authorities who, after two years without any evidence to corroborate Aaron Fisher’s highly-suspect claims against Sandusky, were desperate to finally cobble together enough of a case to facilitate an arrest.

Spanier was not the only person extremely involved in the case who told me about the McQueary penis pictures. Jay Paterno, who had coached very closely with McQueary, also mentioned them independently while drawing me this sketch of the infamous shower, which seemed to indicate that Mike simply could not have witnessed what he claimed to have (the word scribbled to the right of the sketch is "mirror," and the shower is at the top, while the locker area, where McQueary said he was, is at the bottom).




Jay also said that he had seen at least one photo in question himself, though he joked, “Well, it was either Mike, or Ronald McDonald” (a reference to McQueary’s blazing red hair).

I have always felt that the penis pictures were a key piece of the McQueary puzzle, but I was never able to fully confirm the story on my own. I was once sent some pictures, second-hand, which certainly were Mike and very racy, but he was not naked in them and the woman involved, like SO many people in this case, was too cowardly to talk on the record.

Then, in 2014, ESPN star reporter Don Van Natta spoke to me about a profile he was doing on McQueary for ESPN Magazine. During that interview, which I recorded, Van Natta bragged about how he had the entire penis picture story covered, all the way down to the phone records of Mike’s panicked calls to friends convinced that his career would be over once Joe Paterno found out about the pictures.

Van Natta made it VERY clear that he was going to report on this aspect of the story in his profile. However, when the article came out, this entire element was “mysteriously” missing. Here is my discussion with Van Natta along with him trying, in vain, to explain to radio host Kevin Slaten, how it was that this part of the story somehow got edited out:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xXWodkR0LxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" abp="92"></iframe>


Obviously what really happened was that the powers at ESPN, the very same people who created much of the false narrative at the start of this case, wanted no part of raising doubt about whether they may have gotten the whole thing dead wrong. They then forced Van Natta to take it out of the story and consequently he either got removed from the Penn State case entirely, or simply left it on his own out of frustration.

I had pretty much given up on the penis picture angle until very recently when I was contacted by a female supporter named Jess Stewart who said that she had been messaging with McQueary (provoked by him getting a lot of good press for, rather ironically, helping a victim of a car accident) and that he had gotten very sexual, very quickly. She made it clear that she was just doing this to see if she might be able to get some information on McQueary regarding the case and had no interest in him personally. At that point they had never even spoken.

Stewart’s involvement was particularly interesting because Stewart feels strongly that Sandusky is innocent. She thinks this because, get this, she was Sandusky attorney Joe Amendola’s girlfriend/fiancé during the trial (though there is no indication that McQueary knew about her connection to the case, at least until now)!

Having been so frustrated by people hanging me out to dry in this case, I have long ago vowed to stop chasing even marginally questionable people. However, even though I was pretty sure I already knew how this would end, I decided that this was just too good not to at least pursue.

I spoke to her on the phone and explained the “penis picture” situation, which she knew nothing about. I asked her if she could try to get him to send her one. She agreed to do so. It turned out that, just as I suspected, she didn’t have to try very hard at all.

Her exchanges with McQueary began on Facebook and very quickly, after already turning sexual, shifted to texting. Here below, clearly NOT SAFE FOR WORK, are their exchanges, in order, as I was given them by Stewart. The picture McQueary sent of his penis has been blurred by us so as to not qualify as "pornography."

BTW, McQueary’s cell phone number is in one of the images. I have called and texted that number with very specific content related directly to Mike McQueary (even giving him a chance to respond to this story) and have gotten no response, which is exactly what I would have expected from his number. I haven’t redacted the number here because at least this post will have the effect of forcing McQueary to go through the aggravation of changing his cell phone (or at least the one he uses for sexting). So please feel free to use the number and tell him why you called/texted!


















So, to be clear, there is now "porn" in the public record directly related to Mike McQueary, but absolutely none even remotely connected to Jerry Sandusky. Wrap your head around that fact...

It appears from my communication with Stewart that there were more messages/photos sent, especially after Mike send her a picture of his naked and erect penis, but despite her promises to send them to me, she never did. She also told me that they had a couple of phone conversations along the way.

While I already had enough to give me what I wanted (confirmation that this was really McQueary’s modes operandi and that he is much of a scoundrel as everyone has told me he is), I realized that, especially with the insanely high burden of proof I’m held to in this case, I needed to interview Stewart on the record about her experience.

She agreed to be interviewed on my podcast after I assured her that I would do everything I could to protect her identity. However, having been through this game many times before I knew that it was highly likely that she would eventually back out.

There is a weird phenomenon, which I have learned about after being burned many times, where people who have information want to help, but because of the toxic nature of this story are unwilling to follow all the way through. My theory is that the initial act of contacting me and getting/providing potentially helpful information is enough to placate their conscience, so when it comes time to going public they mistakenly think they have already done something “good” and can therefore rationalize bailing out, usually at the urging of a spouse (I also have another theory that this keeps happening in this case because almost everyone who has important information is also low-life white-trash, which is a large part of why this story happened to begin with).

Sure enough, almost like clockwork, after disappearing for a few days, Stewart reneged on her agreement to do an interview with me and, like many others like her, decided to somehow blame me for why she was doing so, also while claiming someone else urged her to do so. Here is our exchange via Facebook when she let me know, just as I figured, that she was chickening out after, it is very important to note that SHE WAS THE ONE WHO INSTIGATED BOTH THE INTERACTION WITH MCQUEARY AND THEN WITH ME!





In case you are wondering why I choose to use Stewart’s name in this piece, I did so for two basic reasons. One, when she backed out of our agreement, I was no longer bound by my part of it. Second, I just don’t give a damn anymore.

As for what she says about Amendola urging her not to do the interview, Joe vehemently claimed to me that this is not true. I honestly don’t know what to believe, and have pretty much stopped caring about this part, too.

I DO know that Mike McQueary is lying dirt bag who is now super-rich, Jerry Sandusky is an innocent man who is going to die in prison, while Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz are also innocent men who may still go to prison, and hardly anyone seems to give a rat’s ass about all of this injustice.






EXCLUSIVE: Bombshell Audio Proves ESPN Censored Key Part of Mike McQueary Profile
https://youtu.be/xXWodkR0LxM

You gotta be fun kidding me?? Really?? Jerry Sandusky innocent?

Wtf???
Pathetic.. is this guy Mccreary a douche? Probably... this article is trash

Yea. Least McQueary wasn't ass raping young boys in a shower. Keep the statue down

Is brucefan really Sandusky posting from prison?