Frank Parlato
A podcast/video featuring the late Franco Harris is available on YouTube, where he discusses a conversation he had with Mike McQueary at Joe Paterno’s funeral on January 25, 2012.
Since the YouTube podcast seems to have been posted by Harris about two months before he passed away on December 20, 2022, the Frank Report is also copying the podcast in case it is removed from YouTube for any reason.
Franco Harris played college football at Penn State University, under Coach Paterno, from 1969 to 1971. Jerry Sandusky was defensive coach during the time.
Harris became an NFL running back and key player in the Pittsburgh Steelers’ success in the 1970s, including winning four Super Bowls. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1990.
Harris Believed Prosecutors Deliberately Lied About Paterno and Sandusky
Up until his death on December 20, 2022, Harris was active in trying to prove that the Penn State scandal was not what it appeared. He called the grand jury indictment of Sandusky a “presentment of lies.”
Central to the scandal was Mike McQueary, an assistant coach at Penn State University, who gained national attention in 2011 when Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina illegally leaked grand jury minutes to local reporter Sara Ganim.
It became a national story. The part that outraged the nation was McQueary saying he saw Sandusky anally raping an unknown boy.
The following is transcribed excerpts of a podcast published on YouTube on October 10, 2022, two months and ten days before Franco Harris died at the age of 72.
Harris’s Conversation With McQueary
-
Franco Harris
By Franco Harris
At Joe Paterno’s funeral, I pulled Mike McQueary aside to talk with him. The presentment of lies that was leaked stated explicitly what Mike McQueary had witnessed about the shower incident at Penn State and that he told Joe Paterno what he saw.
The 33rd statewide investigating grand jury, victim number two.
This is what they said about Mike McQueary:
“As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked, but noticed that both victim two and Sandusky saw him.”
Then it went on to say:
“The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home where he reported what he had seen.”
If you put those two sentences together and you connect those sentences — that Mike said he saw a naked boy estimated to be 10 years old with his hands up against a wall being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky – that’s what everybody would think that he told Joe Paterno, as the last sentence of that paragraph said, that he went to Paterno’s home where he reported what he had seen.
When you look at all this and try to put this together, it doesn’t make sense. But back then people were not looking for what made sense. They were furious and outraged with what they saw in (the grand jury presentment).
So at Joe’s funeral, I asked Mike McQueary a few direct questions, based upon the presentment.
I asked him, “When you looked into the shower, did you witness anal sex?”
Mike McQueary said, “No.”
I’m saying to myself, “What? This is what it said in the presentment.”
So, I’m a little confused here, but I asked another question.
“Did you witness sodomy?”
Mike said, “No.”
Once again, I’m a little baffled here. I’m trying to go on with this.
So I said, “Okay. When you looked into the shower, did Jerry Sandusky have an erection?”
I asked him that, because the grand jury presentment said he looked into the shower.
Mike said he didn’t look.
I was in disbelief. What was going on here?
So I want to follow up with another piece that came out later, and that’s very confusing. When people were questioning about Mike looking directly into the shower, another version came out that said Mike McQueary walked into the shower room in the Lasch building and heard sounds. Glancing into a mirror, he looked into the shower.
So now they’re saying he’s glancing into a mirror. Before it said, he glanced into the shower itself.
I just want to point out that there were two versions of how Mike McQueary witnessed this: one which was in the actual grand jury presentment – that he looked into the shower, and then another version came out where, glancing into a mirror, he looked into the shower.
Stuff is all over the board when we look into this and what they were doing with this presentment of lies.
And then to top it off, Mike followed up with, “I did not say the things in the presentment. I never used the word ‘anal intercourse.'”
What?!
If Mike didn’t say those things, then who put those words in there?
The phrase ‘anal intercourse’ is what caused all the outrage and anger. And that allowed John Surma to fire Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.
Who approved the insertion of that lie? What was the Attorney General’s office doing by deliberately putting out lies?
This lie ruined the lies of many good people, and this is our justice system in Pennsylvania?
All of us now know that there was no crime committed that night at Penn State.
The Attorney General’s office was very crafty and devious about how they worded their presentment and how they positioned the sentences, all of this to stir public outcry. It worked, and it is a disgrace to justice everywhere.
So once again, I want everyone to understand this. The evening of the Jerry Sandusky shower incident at Penn State, there was no sexual abuse that night.
Mike McQueary did not see or witness any form of sexual abuse that night at Penn State. And just as important, all the people Mike McQueary met with to tell them about the shower incident, he never told any of them that it was sexual.
This includes Mike’s father and family doctor friend. Mike told both of them he saw nothing sexual.
We know Mike met with Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and all three said Mike never told them it was sexual. They all remembered the same thing, that Mike never told them it was sexual.
So how about that presentment of lies?
There are so many facets to this story and so many subplots that it’s difficult to give you the facts as we now know them in any straightforward manner. I hope you’ll stay with me as we try to unravel them.
This Ends Harris’s Comments from Podcast
Frank Report Final Comments
Mike McQueary never quite considered how his altered testimony would make him appear the fool forever. He came under fire for not stopping a rape that never happened. McQueary, at 6’5, and 28 years old, a former star quarterback at Penn State, could have prevented the rape of a little ten year old by 57 year old Sandusky by physically intervening or at least calling the police.
According to the grand jury presentment, leaked by Fina, McQueary walked away from a rape in progress and waited until the next morning to tell Paterno.
The story made everyone call Sandusky a vile pervert, but they also called McQueary a coward.
When he saw the media resulting from Fina’s criminal leak of grand jury minutes and apparently the criminal altering of his testimony, McQueary emailed Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eschbah.
“I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment,” McQueary wrote. “I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion.”
In a second email to Eshbach, McQueary complained about “being misrepresented” in the media. To which Eshbach replied, “I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect, and it is hard not to respond. But you can’t.”
The great athlete Franco Harris is gone, but we can, as he asked, stay with him as we attempt to unravel the lies, so many of which we will find emanated from the mastermind of the conviction of Jerry Sandusky: Frank Fina.
To be continued…
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
John Ziegler seems to care more about Jerry Sandusky’s innocence and the pursuit of the truth than even Jerry Sandusky himself.
I have listened to his ENTIRE podcast (all 19 LONG episodes) about this titled; With The Benefit of Hindsight. It’s equal parts mind-blowing, infuriating, and vindicating. Truly powerful stuff. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
John Ziegler needs to have his ENTIRE mountains of research presented in detail on ESPN and every major news outlet over the course of a week or two. Multiple episodes. Documentary style.
Zig knows it all. And he’s sacrificed TREMENDOUSLY and all he wants is for the world to know the truth. But practically nobody cares and it’s so fucking sad.
Thank you John Ziegler for everything you’ve done.
RIP Joe Paterno
RIP Franco Harris
“A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.“ Jerry and Ray live rent free many whores used for my repressed memory
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
Matt, if that really is you, it’s time to tell the truth, before it’s too late.
” The Second Mile said it would remain a legal entity even after it dissolves and continue to “cooperate fully with any investigations.”
dr-john-robert-raykovitz-phd-state-college
“It doesn’t matter what you look at, it’s what you see.
I look at those walls and I see light. I see letters of support, I see great memories. I see family and friends. I see those who overcame big obstacles.
I see my throwing thousands of kids up in the air, hundreds of water balloon battles, happy times, people laughing with us. I see kids laughing and playing, and I see a loveable dog licking their face.”
I just talked to a guy who heard from a crossdresser that Richard Luthmann is a pinche puta.
I keep saying, all the contradictions in the various testimony can be resolved if you understand them in the context of evolving police interviews where a person hasn’t witnessed something.
Police: What did you see when you looked in the shower?
McQueary: I didn’t look in the shower.
Police: OK. Where did you look?
McQueary: I was getting stuff out of my locker.
Police: And from where you were, there was no way to see into the locker room?
McQueary: There was no way to see anything.
Police: So you’re absolutely sure. You know, there are some other things we need to discuss with you….
McQueary: Well, there is a mirror on the inside of the locker door.
Police: So you could see into the locker room by looking into the mirror?
McQueary: I didn’t try to find out.
Police: So you’re saying, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, if you’d looked into that mirror you would have seen the rape in the shower room.
McQueary: I woudln’t know.
Police: So AS FAR AS YOU KNOW you can’t rule out that if you’d looked into that mirror that is what you would have seen.
McQueary: I guess so.
Police: And you’re saying, you managed to get stuff out of your locker wtihout even looking at the inside of your locker door?
McQueary: I must have looked, yeah.
Police: And if you’d looked, you’d have seen the rape that we already know about.
McQueary: Yeah.
Police: But you said you probably did look.
McQueary:Yeah.
Police: So, you don’t specifically remember looking into the mirror and seeing into the locker room and witnessing the rape.
McQueary: Right.
Police: But you admit that you DID look into the mirror, you must have, and that means you admit you DID witness the rape.
McQueary: Yeah, I must have witnessed it even though it didn’t make an impression on my in the instant.
I don’t mind the downvotes because I admit I didn’t explain this well, but it is a real thing you have to think about. Another example is the Amanda Knox interview.
Police: DId Meredith scream?
Amanda: I wasn’t there. I was at a different house.
Police: We know that you were there.
Police: Sometimes when things happen you don’t remember them because you were traumatized. You say you don’t remember being there, but we know that you were.
Amanda: I have to go to the bathroom.
Police: We’ll let you go in just a minute but we have to settle this first. You don’t remember being there but you were. You were with Patrik Lumumba. Did you hear her scream?
Amanda: No. Look I really have to go to the bathroom.
Police: OK you can go, just one more thing. Why didn’t you hear her scream.
Amanda: I wasn’t there.
Police: We’ve been through that before. You just don’t remember but we know you were there. You have to tell us why you didn’t hear her scream.
Amanda: Maybe ..um…I would have had my hands over my ears?
Police: OK and what can you remember about Patrik being there?
Amanda: Well, if I really try I can bring up fleeting images, yeah, of Patrik.
The only way you could even bother to type this out is if you know nothing about how the case developed or who the boy in the shower, Allen Myers, is. Myers himself said nothing happened in the shower, and publicly associated with Sandusky well into adulthood, inviting him to speak at graduation, to his wedding, and even attending Sandusky’s mother’s funeral.
I know that the way Alan Myers knew that he was the boy in the shower is because someone — I think Schultz — asked Jerry what had happened just days afterwards, so it was fresh in Jerry’s mind who it was, and he said “Would you like to talk to the boy?” and the answer was “No, it’s OK.” Then Jerry told Alan, this resulted in Alan going to see Joe Amendola and Joe had him make a sworn statement saying that nothing happened. Also previous to all this Alan had written a letter to the editor when the the case was first publicized saying Jerry is innocent and that is what he said in police interviews.
The prosecution case — once Alan Myers started to change his story, was that Alan never was Victim 2, never was the boy in the shower. This was a decision by Joe McGettigan and it was very ethical. Joe also said he believes the boy in the shower would have been only 10 years old (which also flies in the face of any standing up rape story), and I think it was ethical of McGettigan to totally dismiss Myers’ story change once Myers started interacting with Shubin. McGettigan tried to be an ethical prosecutor and had big problems with Shubin as did the police, not trusting his supposedly incriminating evidence. Even the police saying a lot of witness statements by Shubin clients seemed to have been written by Shubin himself.
About my writing in detail about McQueary’s contradiction, it is not about needing further proof of innocence but rather a post-mortem about how a false conviction took place.
Now, the jury never believed that there was a rape in the shower but they did convict on a lesser charge connected with the suposedly unknown boy in the shower.
And the etymology of that lesser charge lies in the notion that McQueary was at times saying he definiteyl did see something inappropriate.
About why he would say this, if you focus on what he really says, he is really saying that he and the police believe that something inappropriate happened (because of two RHYTHMIC slaps, lol), and the issue lies in the definition of witnessing something.
With a lot of the testimony a witness will say “Yes I witnessed it” for example “I witnessed Sandusky trying to put his hand on my genitals.”
When you really read exactly what the witness is sasying, they are saying that they and the police decide that Sandusky certainly is a predator and WOULD HAVE wanted to do that, despite the witness never observing it.
So the situation is, the police and a witness agree that something happened which the witness didn’t notice. But it did happen and they were there, and there was some way (A mirror etc) that we know that even though the witness has no recollection of the event, they agree that they DID WITNESS IT in principle.
If ONLY McQueary had looked in the mirror, he would have seen the rape.
If ONLY Kajak had released Sandusky’s hand, he would have not only known where it was going, he would have seen it going there.
McQueary never saw a rape, but he can say he WITNESSED it because he agrees that it happened while he was there, and the mirror to see it was right in front of him.
Kajak can say he WITNESSED Sandusky trying to put his hand on genitals because he was right there, he KNEW what such a predator is trying, and it only didn’t happen because Kajak would have prevented it by holding the hand.
Note that this phenomenon is different than RECOVERED MEMORIES. There are NO memories. the witness admits having NO memories, having observed NOTHING.
But they admit WITNESSING THE CRIME because they were present, they know the crime was about to ot did happen, and they just didn’t happen to look in the right direction.
The memories are never RECOVERED, the witnessing is AGREED to have taken place.
WIth v6, he didn’t get molested but he knew he WOULD HAVE if the relationship had continued for more years.
My point is that it is clear that Sandusky is innocent, but also clear that the majority of witnesses are only witnesses because they have AGREED that they are witnesses, and just didn’t happen to observe or remember any crime. They AGREE that a crime took place, they AGREE that they were present and then yet they do not agree with actually seeing or experiencing any crime.
It is possible to admit witnessing something without admitting remembering witnessing it.
The distinction is really important. It is not about false memories.
To be really clear, to repeat this, a participant in a trial can admit witnessing something witnout admitting being aware of the event, or ever having been aware of it.
They agree that the event took place because they accept the police saying there is irrefutable evidence.
They agree that it did/would/must have taken place in such a way that they did/would have/would notice it.
Neither of these implies that they DID notice it.
So what you have is an admittedly unobservant witness.
“I was right there when it happened. I must have seen it. ”
A good defense lawyer would drill down on “But do you REMEMBER actually seeing it?”
Here is where a therapist gets involved.
Why wasn’t Franco allowed to testify at trial about what Mc Queary told him?
That would have destroyed this case!
This is hear say
McQueary told Franco the truth of what he saw and did NOT see. However, McQueary was/is not man enough then or now to clarify the lies of the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution lied FOR McQueary and McQueary is the ultimate coward to this day and should be ashamed of himself. Shameful!!
I remember hearing about this years ago from John Ziegler who became very good friends with Franco. The thing that shows the power of the justice system and the media combined is this. Franco was a major celebrity in the State of Pennsylvania and his story, like so many others, did not fit the narrative of events and therefore he too was ignored. He was just getting started with his podcasts when he was taken from us. It begs the question, would he have changed the narrative had he lived? You could make the same case for Coach Paterno, had he lived. His son, Jay, knows the truth but remains on the sidelines as do so many others who knew Jerry but are afraid to speak the truth. What the heck are they waiting for? Isn’t it time?