John Ziegler on McQueary’s Mistake: The Date That Could Free Sandusky

John Ziegler Breaks Sandusky Story

Reporter, filmmaker, podcaster, and broadcaster John Ziegler broke the story of Jerry Sandusky’s innocence. He published an extensive podcast series entitled With the Benefit of Hindsight.

Ziegler dedicated Episode #1 to how a significant witness for the prosecution, Mike McQueary, got the date wrong about when he witnessed a supposed incident of Jerry Sandusky abusing a boy in the locker room showers in the Lasch Building at Penn State. Ziegler makes the argument that McQueary not only got the date wrong but also that he did not see Jerry Sandusky abusing a little boy.

It is fitting that this is the first in our series of guest views on why intelligent people believe Jerry Sandusky is innocent. Ziegler was the brave and intrepid individual who publicly advanced this idea – when all the world believed Jerry Sandusky was guilty.

Ziegler’s Case Against McQueary’s Testimony

By John Ziegler

When people understand the true history of the date of the so-called Mike McQueary episode, they must conclude that Jerry Sandusky is likely innocent and that the entire case against him falls apart.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know, he uses my work on the McQueary wrong date to question the entire case.

We know the prosecution had to admit that Mike McQueary got the date wrong in the grand jury.

The grand jury’s presentment claims the so-called McQueary shower episode happened on March 1, 2002.

The prosecution later found the date false, which should automatically prove that there’s a big problem in the case.

Not only did McQueary and the prosecution acknowledge that McQueary’s original testimony that he saw Sandusky abusing a boy in a Penn State locker room shower on March 1, 2002 was wrong, because we have the emails from Penn State administrators — McQueary got the date, the month, and the year wrong — when they go to trial months later, they have to say, “Well, no, the date of this episode is not March 1, 2002, it was February 9, 2001.” More than one year off.

Mike McQueary

When a witness’s credibility is everything, and suddenly he says, “Well, what I testified was wrong, but now I’m sure it’s right,” that is a problem. And the prosecution quietly announced this change of date between Jerry’s arrest and the trial.

When I interviewed Jerry Sandusky in prison for the first time, he knew that February 9, 2001, was impossible. I went away thinking that February 9 was the wrong date.

I started down that path of checking the date, and I got stuck. I didn’t return to it until two years later, after I became convinced Jerry Sandusky was innocent.

Through basic detective work, I eventually realized that McQueary’s testimonies to both the grand jury (the date was March 1, 2002) and the trial jury (the date was February 9, 2001) were incorrect.

He saw Sandusky in the Penn State locker room shower on December 29, 2000, six weeks earlier than McQueary testified at the trial.

This means there was a six-week gap between this shower episode and McQueary’s visit to Joe Paterno on the morning of February 10, 2001.

McQueary saw Paterno on February 10, 2001, which we know because of emails.

No Urgency in McQueary’s Actions

But if there’s a six-week gap – if December 29, 2000 is the correct date, and McQueary waited six weeks to see Paterno – there’s no urgency, which contradicts McQueary’s testimony.

If there’s no urgency, there’s no rape or sexual assault. And if there’s no rape or sexual assault, then the entire case against Jerry Sandusky falls apart.

Here’s why we know that the February 9 date is wrong.

It began with Sandusky, who told me, “I know I spent all day with Allan Myers,” the boy in the shower. February 9 can’t be the day. That’s a Friday in the middle of February. Sandusky said, “I never would’ve taken Allan Myers out of school.”

Verifying the Date

After interviewing Sandusky in prison, I called Allan Myers’ school. I talked to an administrator, who confirmed the school was in session on February 9, 2001.

I didn’t believe everything Jerry Sandusky said then, and I thought he must be guilty of something. But okay, the date is consistent with what Jerry’s telling me. He said it can’t be February 9 because he knows he spent all day with Allan Myers driving across Pennsylvania.

There were many other data points that I had to go to.

McQueary consistently testified that the night of this so-called shower incident—a Friday—was extremely quiet on campus. The prosecution used “quiet campus” to their advantage with the first date MacQueary gave before the grand jury, when they thought the incident occurred on March 1, 2002.

Activity on Campus Contradicts McQueary

Friday, March 1, 2002, was the first night of spring break. The prosecutors implied Jerry Sandusky somehow had this expectation of privacy, so he could have the shower at the Lasch Building all to himself to rape young boys.

The March 1, 2002, date worked well for the prosecution, but they had to change it to February 9, 2001, after finding out McQueary met with Paterno on February 10. 

However, February 9 does not work well for McQueary’s testimony that the campus was quiet. February 9, 2001, might’ve been the busiest night on campus of the entire year. Right across the street that night was a sold-out rock concert.

More Evidence Contradicting Quiet Campus Claim

A sold-out rock concert across the street shows the level of activity, traffic, and parking available. Former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz has told me that it would’ve been impossible for Mike to find parking at the Lasch building under those circumstances.

But there is more. That night, February 9, precisely the time this episode allegedly occurred, there was a hockey game in the Lasch building itself. So you have a sold-out rock concert across the street and a hockey game in the same building.  There is zero chance that this was a quiet night on campus, as McQueary testified. It was precisely the opposite.

There’s a good chance that on February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary read in the local paper that Kenny Jackson had just left the Penn State football coaching staff to take a job with the Pittsburgh Steelers, which means the wide receivers coaching position has just opened up.

McQueary’s Motives Questioned

That’s the job Mike wanted. That’s the job Mike would ultimately get three years later.

By the way, this blows apart the entire Penn State cover-up theory. To believe that Joe Paterno and other top administrators covered up Sandusky’s abuse of a boy, we must think Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the showers at Penn State, and that there’s a job opening at Penn State. McQueary goes to Joe Paterno, who wants to cover up Sandusky’s abuse, but does not give McQueary the job!

If Paterno had wanted to cover up Sandusky’s abuse, wouldn’t he more likely say, “Mike, okay, thank you much for this information. By the way, you’ve been doing a hell of a job for us. Congratulations. You’re the new wide receivers coach.”

But McQueary didn’t get the job.

Alternative Explanation for McQueary’s Visit

I suggest two possibilities. McQueary decided to see Paterno on the morning of February 10, 2001, because he just saw Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in a public shower room, (by the way a boy he just left alone with Sandusky) – or that McQueary went to see Paterno because he found out there’s an open job that Paterno could give him. I think number two is far more likely than number one.

I believe the wide receiver coaching job opening motivated Mike McQueary’s visit to Joe Paterno on February 10. When he realized he’s not getting the job after speaking to Paterno, he mentions, “Oh, by the way, I saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower recently. It made me uncomfortable. He was with a boy. Can you tell him to knock it off?” Paterno says, “Sure, Mike, I’ll take care of it.”

Sue Paterno’s Three-Minute Meeting Account

According to Sue Paterno, Joe’s widow, the February 10, 2001 meeting between McQueary and Paterno lasted three minutes.

Sue Paterno is integral in this case. She has a legendary memory, and she was there.

There’s no way McQueary told Joe Paterno in three minutes that he saw Jerry Sandusky raping a boy. It’s impossible. It was the job opening that provoked the meeting with Paterno. But it would not take Paterno more than three minutes to tell McQueary he was not qualified for the job.

The Correct Date

So, we have March 1, 2002, the original wrong prosecution date. That was a Friday. The second date used at trial, February 9, 2001, is also a Friday. The correct date is Friday, December 29, 2000.

The first reason December 29 qualifies is that it is the quietest night you’ll ever find at Penn State’s campus. It’s between Christmas and New Year’s, and no one is on campus. This supports McQueary’s testimony that it was quiet. The timing of this is essential. McQueary says the incident happened somewhere around nine o’clock.

Well, it’s a hell of a coincidence that the college football games were on television all that day. Around that time of night would be the perfect time for McQueary to say, “I’m bored. I’ve been watching college football all day.” Penn State was not in a bowl game that year, which was rare. In fact, Penn State sucked that year. Ironically enough, partially because Jerry Sandusky had retired the previous year. McQueary is doing nothing. He’s bored. He decides to go to the Lasch Building, and I believe that while doing whatever he thought he would do, pick up some tapes, shoes, whatever, killing time, he hears the shower and what he now describes as slapping noises. I think he expected to see a Penn State assistant coach with a female engaged in some sexual activity. Then, when he turns the corner, looks in the mirror, and sees Sandusky goofing around with a kid, he is shocked.

No Urgency in McQueary’s Report

I have no problem with the fact that he was made uncomfortable, but he did not see a rape or any sexual abuse. What he saw was Sandusky and Allan Myers taking a shower after a workout, following a cross-state trek that began in Washington, Pennsylvania, where Sandusky had done a book signing, ironically enough for his book called Touched.

That book was just coming out at that time. This was one of the first, if not the first, events Sandusky did for that book. So, consistent with what Jerry had told me in prison, he spent all day with Allan Myers from Washington, Pennsylvania, Jerry’s hometown.

Then, after the book signing, he drives back to State College.

Interview with Sandusky’s College Roommate

I had an interview with Sandusky’s college roommate. I heard he had spoken to Jerry on that trip. He called him because Sandusky was on the verge of being hired as Virginia’s head football coach, and Jerry’s college roommate had a son at the University of Virginia then.

While traveling from Washington, PA, to State College, Jerry converses with his college roommate on his cell phone. The former roommate verified Jerry’s story.

Verification of Sandusky’s Timeline

I believe Sandusky continued to State College. He and Allan worked out in the gym, and then they took a shower in the public shower. That’s what Mike McQueary witnessed in the Lasch Building.

Now, the Virginia head coaching job becomes vital in dating the incident because it’s the following day, December 30, 2000, that Sandusky learns he does not get the job. He knows this by watching ESPN while at one of his book signings in State College.

Local Newspaper Confirmation

How do we know this? An article in the local newspaper reports this on December 31, 2000. This goes back to my interview with Sandusky. When Sandusky told me he knew it wasn’t February 9, he kept telling me that he connected the date with the debut of his book and not getting the job in Virginia.

You cannot have a date that combines all these factors more perfectly than December 29, a Friday, and an incredibly quiet on campus. It’s the day of his first book signing in Washington, PA.

It’s the day before he finds out he does not get the Virginia head coaching job.

Connecting the Dots

When you combine all the factors, it’s clear that McQueary’s date is December 29, 2000, and there’s a six-week gap between that date and when McQueary sees Paterno. I believe he went to Paterno not to report Sandusky’s abuse but because of the job opening created when Kenny Jackson left Penn State to go to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

December 29 is consistent with Sandusky’s recollection, consistent with McQueary’s description of the night, consistent with Sandusky’s college roommate telling me what happened on the night of December 29, and consistent with the idea that Mike McQueary didn’t see a rape. He saw Sandusky with a boy in the shower. The six week gap proves there was no urgency.

Lying for Self-Interest

Nothing provoked McQueary to make any official report about Sandusky until the Kenny Jackson job opened up. That’s when he saw his opportunity to see Joe Paterno, which laid the foundation for the injustice that would happen ten years later.

I think McQueary started lying after Joe Paterno died, because he knew no one could call him out on it. So he started saying whatever fit his narrative to support his lawsuit against Penn State as a whistleblower. His testimony changes once Paterno dies.

I believe prosecutors manipulated McQueary’s memory. But I also think he worked out of self-interest. I’m not defending McQueary. He’s divorced now. His wife is pretty much on record saying he’s a lying sack of crap. I have no problem calling Mike McQueary a liar. This began with prosecutors manipulating McQueary and then it evolved into his lying.

Consequences of Knowing the Wrong Date

If we had known in November of 2011, when the Attorney General indicted Sandusky, that McQueary got the date, the month and the year wrong, which we now know with certainty, because the prosecution admitted that, the whole case is different, because then everyone pumps the brakes. Joe Paterno doesn’t get fired. Graham Spanier doesn’t get fired, and the case against Curley and Schultz probably never gets prosecuted, because people would say, “Whoa, whoa, wait, wait a minute. We’re going to put everything on Mike McQueary, who didn’t even get the date, the month, or the year, correct?”

That’s the first way this would’ve been dramatically altered.

The second way is that Sandusky knew the date was wrong, not just the first date, but also the second date. He must have told his attorney, Joe Amendola, that the dates were wrong. So, how do you not throw your entire defense into that?

Case Falls Apart with Wrong Date

If the second date is also wrong, the case is over.

If Joe Amendola had figured out that February 9 was also wrong, the jury would have acquitted Jerry Sandusky because everything else would have fallen apart from that standpoint.

The short answer is that if we had known immediately that McQueary got the first date wrong, Joe Paterno and the administrators would have been saved. Jerry Sandusky would have been saved if they defense had figured out that McQueary got the date wrong the second time.

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky and/or add your name to the growing list of supporters requesting Penn State Trustees to examine the evidence, email me at FrankReport76@gmail.com.