Obvious Questions the Media Won't Even Dare to Ask About the Sandusky Story

A year ago today, Bob Costas hosted a special on the Freeh Report in which he became the first (and still only) truly mainstream broadcaster to seriously question the conventional “wisdom” of what happened in the Jerry Sandusky story at Penn State. When the rest of the media decided to completely ignore this remarkable development, it marked the moment that we knew, for sure, that they were never going to voluntarily alter their narrative.

The rest of the news media has made it very clear that they are positive they know exactly what happened in this saga. It goes something like this:

Sandusky was a monster serial pedophile and the Penn State administration (including Joe Paterno) knew about it, did nothing to stop it, and probably covered it up, because they were concerned with protecting the program from bad publicity.

As far as the media is concerned, there is no need to even look at the facts anymore. Just like with “Global Warming” (sorry, “Global Climate Change”), the case is closed. There is not even any need to pay attention to the trial involving the Penn State administrators which is yet to happen. Let’s all move along.

The most remarkable aspect of this rush to move on, as well as the extraordinary lack of curiosity in what really happened here, is that there are an incredible number of very important questions about this narrative that the news media has never even asked, and which have certainly never been answered.

Here is a partial list (it would take a book to list all of them) of those unasked/answered questions which reveal the utter absurdity of how this false narrative has been allowed to go completely unchallenged in the mainstream media. I will gladly donate $10,000 to the charity of choice of the first member of the news media who provides legitimate answers to all of them (I will not be holding my breath).


Why has Mike McQueary always maintained that he was never even asked not to speak to anyone about what he witnessed in the Penn State showers in 2001?

Why is McQueary not suing Penn State for being forced to be part of a cover-up?

Why did McQueary not get the open wide receivers job after he reported the 2001 incident, even though he would get the same job two years later?

Why did the Penn State cover-up apparently and needlessly not involve the only witness?

Why has McQueary’s story changed so many times and so significantly?

Why do both Sandusky and the boy who was there that night both adamantly say (and their actions back up) that McQueary did not tell the truth when he said that he made his personal presence known to them?

Why did McQueary apparently play in multiple Second Mile golf tournaments after witnessing this “assault”?

Why did McQueary get the age of boy significantly wrong (he said 10, the boy was almost 14)?

Why did the boy (then a 24-year-old married sergeant in the Marine Corps) known now as Victim #2 make a declarative statement on the record, on the day Joe Paterno was fired, that nothing ever happened that night?

Why have the lawyers for Victim #2 never made a statement saying that he was abused the night McQueary saw him with Sandusky?

Why did this person (Victim #2) not get called to testify by the prosecution?

Why did McQueary get the date/month/year of the incident wrong (and think it happened after 9/11 when it actually happened before) if it was such a big deal?

Why do you believe anything said by a guy who apparently bet on college football games in which he played?

Why did (according to ESPN, which refused to report it) McQueary lie when he said that he knew immediately investigators were contacting him to discuss Sandusky when he really feared it was about penis pictures he had sent to a PSU co-ed through a PSU phone?

Why was Dr. Dranov, who spoke to McQueary the night of the episode and whose testimony is very similar to that of Curley and Schultz, not indicted as part of the alleged cover-up?

If there was a cover-up, why haven’t Spanier, Curley or Schultz “flipped” on the others to save themselves?

How did the idea for the cover-up start and whose idea was it (there is simply no possible scenario here which makes any sense)?

If this was a cover-up, why did Gary Schultz stupidly volunteer, under oath, a description of what he imagined McQueary meant by “horseplay” (genital grabbing) which was both more sexual than needed and inaccurate?

If this was a cover up, then why didn’t Joe Paterno simply say that he didn’t remember what McQueary told him ten years earlier?

If Paterno really remembered the conversation with McQueary why was he so uncertain about it being “sexual” and why did he use a key word (“fondling”) which does not seem to fit with McQueary’s testimony?

If Paterno was part of a cover-up, then why did lead Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina say on CBS that he was NOT and why was he praised on the very first day of the story by the Attorney General’s office?

If Paterno was part of a cover-up, what was his motivation for protecting a former assistant whom he never really liked?

If Paterno was part of a cover-up, as it fell completely apart on November 9th, 2011, why did he come outside to wave to adoring fans while smiling and then tell the students to go study?

If Paterno really was by far the most powerful man in State College and knew all, then how did he get fired, by total surprise, over a cell phone?

If Paterno was part of a cover-up which he had to know was in grave jeopardy of falling apart in late 2010, then why did he invite a book author to follow him around for the entire next year?

Why did that author, Joe Posnanski, not find or witness one shred of evidence indicating that Paterno was involved in a cover-up?

If Paterno and McQueary were not part of a cover-up, how could there possibly be a cover-up without them?

Why didn’t Louis Freeh speak to McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Sandusky?

Why did Louis Freeh omit Paterno’s October 2011 OAG interview which he had to know about it and which strongly contradicts Freeh’s interpretation of key emails?

Why did Freeh schedule his press conference for the slowest sports day of the year and never take serious questions again as he promised he would?

Why did Mark Emmert and Louis Freeh both duck interviews with Bob Costas on this issue?

Why did the NCAA rush to impose sanctions in record speed on a matter over which they had no jurisdiction?

Why did the NCAA nonsensically begin sanctions in 1998 even though Sandusky was never even accused of a crime in 1998 and the DA never even pursued charges?

If Penn State or Paterno really thought that Sandusky was a pedophile in 1998, then why did they let him coach for two more seasons well after that incident and why did they not do anything at all to torpedo him being offered the head coaching job at the University of Virginia in 2000?

Why did Sara Ganim contact the mother of Victim 6 (1998) and tell her that the case was in danger of being thrown out if she didn’t help find new victims?

Why has Sara Ganim never written a book about her Pulitzer Prize-winning journey towards cracking the “biggest scandal in the history of college football”?

If 1998 was really a big deal, then why did the mother of Victim 6 allow her son to engage in a 13-year close relationship with Sandusky after the fact, with no further incidents?

Why was every single criminal allegation against Sandusky made from someone within the Second Mile and not one came from his football camps?

If there was a cover-up at the Second Mile, why would founder/founder Bruce Heim play golf, very publicly, with Sandusky, Ryan McCombie, and Victim #2 after the Sara Ganim article came out indicating that it was all going to collapse (if it was real).

Why was there not even one allegation of pornography, alcohol plying, or payoffs against Sandusky?

Why was there not even one piece of DNA, photographic, or tape recorded evidence against Sandusky?

If Sandusky is so obviously guilty then why can’t anyone ever answer this question I always ask them: which specific accuser do you believe and why do you believe them?

Why is this the only high-profile criminal case in modern American history where you are literally not allowed to even question the evidence in the media and, if you try (much like a Global Warming “denier”) you are treated as a bad person who is either crazy or stupid?

Why is this the first case in modern American history where it is considered unthinkable that indigent people lied about/exaggerated stories for millions of dollars while the whole world told them they were doing the right thing?

Why was there not even one allegation from all the Sandusky foster children, even though it would have been worth lots of money?

Why do none of the Sandusky adopted children believe Matt Sandusky?

Why is it that Matt Sandusky testified under oath in a grand jury that he was never abused by Sandusky (and why was that not considered perjury?)?

Why is it that the debunked theory of repressed memory therapy was allowed to make a one-time comeback just for the purposes of this case?

If Sandusky was so guilty, then why did his attorney agree to have him do a last-minute, totally unplanned, phone interview with Bob Costas, another interview on video with the New York Times, and then one with me in prison?

How is it that the same guy who couldn’t properly answer a simple question from Bob Costas on the phone was able to maintain this incredibly complex cover-up for several decades?

How did Sandusky keep so many kids (who turned into adults) totally quiet for so long with basically only Penn State football tickets as leverage, while Lance Armstrong couldn’t maintain his cover-up for nearly as long despite millions of dollars, huge fame, an adoring media, and an entire industry infrastructure designed to keep it afloat?

Is Dottie Sandusky lying when she says she is sure that Jerry is innocent and that two of the key accusers who place her at the scene are not telling the truth?

If Dottie Sandusky is lying, then why is she staying in State College instead of moving somewhere where she can live in peace?

If Dottie Sandusky is lying, then why does she drive at least seven hours a week, in all sorts of weather, to go visit Jerry in prison?

Is it just an incredible coincidence that the former stepfather of Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) was recently arrested for committing acts of serial child molestation, including on his own child, or is it possible that it was he (just as Sandusky told his lawyer before the trial) whose abuse Fisher “remembered” thanks to his therapist?

Why is Fisher still obsessed with people calling him a liar when no one in the media is doing that?

Why did Fisher recently say that coming forward with his abuse (and becoming rich and famous) was MORE difficult to deal with than the alleged abuse itself?

Why is it that many of Fisher’s close friends STILL believe that he is lying about Sandusky?

Why is it that all of Fisher’s speaking engagements have no more than two days of advanced notice and none are ever in Pennsylvania? 

Why is it that it took Fisher three tries before he could finally tell his story to a grand jury and only after he read it with his therapist and future book co-author sitting there with him?

Why did Fisher tell 20/20 that it made him “feel like crap” to hear Sandusky imply he is a liar? Wouldn’t it have made him either angry or make him laugh?

Why do some many of Sandusky’s close friends, and others close to the case, still privately say that they think he is telling the truth?

Why is it that those closest to this story and those who know the most about the facts of the story have such a dramatically different view of what really happened, and why are they ones who are deemed to be “crazy”?

Why is it that those who know the least about the facts of this story (especially those in the media) are the ones who are most adamant that the conventional wisdom is true?

Why is it that some of Paterno’s biggest media detractors happened to be the very same people who were duped the longest and the hardest by Lance Armstrong?

Why is it that Bob Costas has risked the most prestigious position in sportscasting to change his mind about a significant part of what really happened here?

How is it that Sandusky was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and had all of his appeals exhausted well before the three Penn State administrators ever came close to even going to trial?

Why have none of my critics agreed to debate me, even for significant charity money?

Why is it that Scott Paterno has never even tried to take me up on my offer (made numerous times to him directly) that if he just shows me how I am wrong I will publicly apologize to him and take down the www.FramingPaterno.com website?

Why can’t the other side even try to tell a full story which is consistent and makes any sense, while I can do so in my sleep (and have done so in a free book)?

What is my motivation for why I am doing all of this (I really wish someone would at least try to answer this one!)?

Why is it that none of my critics will answer any of these questions when I can answer every single one of theirs?

How could any narrative be remotely credible when there are so many questions those who believe in it can’t and/or won’t answer?