McQueary may have stopped the assault AND went to the police
Apparently he will be on CBS tonight. Emails obtained by a news outlet authored by McQueary says that he did stop it and went to the police...
In the email obtained by The Morning Call, McQueary wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" following the alleged incident between Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant coach, and a boy. McQueary also wrote that he "is getting hammered for handling this the right way or what I thought at the time was right."
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-penn-state-scandal-mcqueary-20111…
I hope this is true for his sake
November 15th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^
Totally disagree. The guys has received death threats and his name and career are being flushed down the toilet. If they want to him to remain quiet, the AG should issue a statement saying McQueary is getting a raw deal* in the press or he should be able to defend himself.
*Assuming he isn't just making up this new information.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
If this is true, than Joe Pa got screwed. I know many of you will say he still deserved to get fired, but that is rather hypocritical.
People say he had to have known what was going on in his own program and his inaction was his downfall. By the same logic (and a big IF this is true), you have to assume he knew McQueary took this to the police and the matter was in the right hands.
But I still expect to get roasted for this because people have been very irrational over this disaster. I understand why because of the sensitive nature and the horrible acts committed by Sandusky. But Joe Pa may have got a raw deal and people will be afraid to admit that.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:36 PM ^
Sandusky was still showing up at practices WITH CHILDREN years later and nobody stopped him.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^
IF (big if) the matter was handed over to the police and nothing came of it, what reason would JoePa have had to stop Sandusky from attending practices? If you report a possible crime to police and they let the guy go, you have to assume he was innocent.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^
...IF this was covered up to protect the football program, do you think that decision was taken without input from the athletic department or the football staff?
November 15th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
It could have been. It could have been covered up solely by the administration to protect the entire university's image. Heck, it could have been covered up by the regents under the guise of an executive session. I just don't think we know what we don't know..
November 15th, 2011 at 7:19 PM ^
I find it inconceivable that Paterno did not know what was going on, and that if what we are throwing about is the case, that Paterno would have been dumped at all. You aren't talking about just the football program, you are talking about the image of the entire university. You would think a vigorous defense would have been undertaken. To believe tha the trustees would go along with a coverup, as someone suggested as a possibility seems equally implausible. Too many people would have to have known, virtually guaranteeing that the story would eventually get out, and then with a vast number of careers being ruined.
November 15th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
Are you serious? "What reason would JoePa have had to stop Sandusky from attending practices?" Any reason he wanted. He's the head coach, it's his practice.
November 16th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
If a man is legally exonerated, why would JoePa have wanted to keep an old friend and colleague from attending practices. I'm not saying this is what happened, but if McQueary did go to police and the football team did think it was being dealt with by the property law enforcement personnel and nothing came of it, I could see how you'd have no problem letting a guy back on campus.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
If Paterno knew McQueary took this to the police he would have said so.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
After two police complaints (with Sandusky admitting once that he showered in the PSU locker room with young boys), JoePa could have decided that this was a problem, both for the children and for PSU. He didn't make that conclusion and allowed Sandusky access into his facility. To me, that's a firing offense whether or not Paterno knew the police were involved.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
I will say Paterno got screwed if and when its shown that Paterno did one of the following: (1) contacted police officers directly, not Schulz who seems more akin to a City Mayor or Manager in terms of his relationship to the police, or (2) repeatedly followed up with McGloin, Curley and Schultz until a satisfactory reason for why Sandusky wasn't arrested was given (not that I believe there could be one after an eye witness of the rape of a 10 year old boy).
Seven years of abuse followed this incident which was a second allegation against Sandusky, which Paterno in all likelihood knew. Paterno was an authority figure with knowledge of a crime that is typically repetitive in nature. He had to do everything in his power to stop Sandusky.
November 16th, 2011 at 8:04 AM ^
I don't think that JoePa got screwed. There was a reason why Sandusky "resigned" in 1999. There was also a reason why Virginia was 2 seconds away from hiring Sandusky and Jim Caldwell in 2000 before a trip to Happy Valley changed their minds. People knew what was going on. Also, why would JoePa feel he needed to retire at the end of the year, when he hadn't said anything like that before all of this came to light, if he wasn't trying to save his ass. There is way too much smoke regarding he cover up for there not to be a fire. And this goes all the way to the Gov., who was the Attorney General during all of this and is a BOT member.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
He did. Enough said
November 15th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
If he took this to police and the police brushed it aside to protect PSU football, then this story just got a whole lot bigger, scarier, and more infuriating.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
That's putting it mildly. Since this story broke, people have (that I know of) called for the heads of PSU's president, its VP, its AD, a legendary football coach, a football alum/coach, Sandusky, the presiding judge, and the PA AG.
If this is actually a Centre County/State College Police coverup, or a PSU campus police coverup (which would be even bigger, IMO, because they're part of the State Police) this is going to a whole other dimension of crazy. This case could bring down an awful lot of people if there was actually a police coverup.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:49 PM ^
Well, I am not sure if he talked to actal officers, or just with Schultz, along with Curley, which is what the basic testimony is. Schultz was the overseer of the Campus Police back then.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^
[He had] discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:31 PM ^
.....then most of central Pennsylvania had to be involved.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
Wow. Everyone is getting their television interview. When is JoePa's turn?
Seriously, I have no idea what the hell's going on anymore.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
Isn't McQueary a witness for the state? What is there to gain by him going on TV? If he says something that isn't true or may be is brought into doubt by other testimony, won't that create questions about the truth of his story? Basically, isn't this a bad idea?
November 15th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
It's probably a bad idea for the prosecution, or at least raises questions that will require answers.
But if you're Mike McQueary and you did actually go to the police and stop the rape, how long are you supposed to wait to defend your name? Keep in mind that he's been denounced as a coward and cretin across both the old and new media. If his story is substantially different from the way it's being portrayed, I can't say that he doesn't have a right to speak.
That said, I hope he's cleared this with prosecuters.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
Will come out, obviously...but something is seriously wrong when the judge let him off on $100k bail..that judge has ties to Second Mile, and should have deferred the case due to conflict of interest. Also, where does a guy who is charged with dozens of counts of child abuse, just walk out, unmonitored, to his home on $100k bail? Serious corruption and enablement in that state.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
Couldn't agree more. In fact, with the near certainty that he'll spend the rest of his life in prison for what he's already accused of (and with the death penalty irrelevant), there would be no additional punishment for additional wrongdoing. That he's walking the streets right now is completely outrageous to me.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^
He's only responsible for it if he fails to show up. It's "unsecured." Maybe it was "Opposite Day" at the courthouse.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:00 PM ^
Sandusky's behavior so far seems to indicate the judge was right not to deem him a flight risk. Far from fleeing, he's going on TV fergodsakes.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
Crimes have higher, AND SECURED bail requirements.
He is on TV now because he is in denial, and because he had always been allowed to continue this "playful" (barf) behavior..because god forbid anything tarnishes the righteous Penn State.. Even the judge didn't treat this seriously.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
Although I might agree with the sentiment, that's not how the American bail system, or the American judicial system in general, works.
Availability of bail is based upon the seriousness of the crime (and future danger to the community) and the flight risk of the defendant. It's clear here that Sandusky, although he's accused of about the worst things a person can do, is not particularly high on the flight risk scale. He has long ties to the area, his family is there, his house is there, he is a public figure, has hired counsel, and now he is doing interviews. It's easy to see why he was given the option of bail. Additionally, keeping someone like him safe (as he hasn't been convicted in an actual court yet) in lockup is not going to be easy or pratical.
As to the judge recusing herself, her ties to Second Mile, unless she felt that they would impact her ability to be impartial, are essentially irrelevant. Many states do not have mandatory judicial recusal guidelines (though I'm not positive about PA), unlike the federal district and circuit courts, instead relying upon judicial discretion to be impartial. Here, I can imagine any number of scenarios where her ties to Second Mile would have no impact on her ability to be impartial.
Claims of "serious corruption and enablement" of the judiciary at this point are ridiculous.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
I am not a lawyer, so apologies for my admitted ignorance regarding the process. However there appear to be so many missed opportunities to stop the behavior, and I guess that infuriates me to jump to conclusions. At face value, it seems like he is continuing to get special treatment..
November 15th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
Understandably so as it regards what appears to be "special treatment". The MSM loves to report on the judge's ties to the Second Mile or that Sandusky was let out on bail, but not on the procedural safeguards or processes along the way. Without having seen the process firsthand, it's tough to draw many other conclusions. Your frustration is pretty understandable.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
Sandusky's house is right next door to an elementary school. What a coincidence!
November 15th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
If true, then I can understand him wanting to tell his side of the story as soon as possible.; he is being accused of some pretty damn henious inaction. But this also means there was some either gross incompetance on investigators parts or a huge cover-up. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^
... perjury on McQueary's part during his grand jury testimony.
Why he would diminish his effort to stop the event in a testimony is beyond me. All very confused. And the more sordid this gets, the more horrible I feel for the alleged victims or others who haven't spoken up. This circus is only making it more difficult for people to come forth.
November 16th, 2011 at 8:17 AM ^
You don't know for sure that he didn't say this in his testimony. All that was put out for people to read was a grand jury summary, not his full testimony. Just like how no part of JoePa's testimony was released, I bet there is a lot more to this whole story if the full testimony was released. This is just McQueary trying to save face becuase his name has been smeared, and only he and a few others know if that was just or not.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
...does he mean campus police or the State College/University Park police department? I don't know how this works at Penn State, but at Chicago if you saw a crime and used one of the emergency phones on campus your call would be handled by the campus police and not the city.
It's not so much that I would blame him for the former; it's that I'd want to know who failed to act if this is true.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
Did McQueary testify for the Grand Jury? If so, did he tell the story listed in the report about the shower incident?
November 15th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
I'm sure it's not complete in the report, but it seems like his timing is strange here. Would he really risk perjury to save his reputation? I guess it could be worth it (Life has been threatened). It just makes more sense to me that he told the truth the first time when he told the GJ that he was trying on his new shoes, and that he felt distraught and shocked.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
The indictment said that he saw what was happening, saw that both the boy and Sandusky saw him, and left "immediately." It says that he called his father right away and then told Paterno the next day. One and half weeks later, McQueary told Schutlz and Curley what he had seen. The indictment says that he was never questioned by university police or any other investigative body until the investigation that led to the indictment.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:08 PM ^
if I had to hang my hat on one thing right now, I'd begin my investigation at the local constabulary.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
the whistleblower explanation as to why he was placed on leave rather than fired now is more likely.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Nah, the whistleblower explanation always made sense. He is the primary witness against his boss (Curley) on the perjury charge. Would look very bad to fire him.
What possibly makes sense now is why he wasn't put on leave until it became obvious he couldn't do his job due to death threats. If the Board heard his whole story, they might not have found any fault in him.
November 15th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
The reason he's saying he went to the police is for his whistleblower case. If he didn't go to the police, if he only went to Paterno, there is no whistleblower case. You must report it outside of your organization. I'm not convinced telling Schultz would count either, as he's still a Penn State employee. It would be like a GM worker reporting something to GM security.
Of course, it completely contradicts what he apparently told the grand jury under oath. There's no grey area. So if he indeed told the grand jury he went to Paterno, and then changes his story, he lied to one or the other, and that's perjury.
November 15th, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^
1. If by "police" he meant campus police, which would be common sense usage on most campuses, I don't see why it completely contradicts his grand jury testimony. I also don't see how any of us can pass a judgment on that in any case, since we haven't seen the testimony (note your "apparently").
Maybe I'm naive, but if I went to campus police about a crime and was summoned to tell my story to the head of the department, I'd think it was being taken seriously. It wouldn't occur to me that this meant they were sweeping it under the rug.
2. I don't think his whistleblower status has anything to do with his initial reporting of the crime; it's his testimony to the grand jury implicating the AD and President in perjury and failure to report that gives him that status.
3. This was a private e-mail sent to a friend just after the story broke. Doesn't it seem a bit cynical to assume that its only purpose was to plant a lie that would protect his whistleblower status? There are more straightforward explanations that come to mind.
November 16th, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^
1) Yes, the apparently was because we have a grand jury report and not a transcript. Therefore, we don't know exactly what he said. But the grand jury seems to think he didn't take it outside the university. Campus security may not be the police.
2) You misunderstood what I meant with the whistleblower comment. I'm saying that if he was planning a whistleblower action, he would have had to report it outside his organization. In other words, he would have had to take it to the police. By saying now that he took it to police -- after he was placed on indefinite administrative leave and likely heading for dismissal -- I'm suggesting he has ulterior motives outside of simply saving face.
3) I have no idea the context for the email. It could very well be in response to people emailing him the proverbial "WTF?" and he wants to save face. Is it cynical to suggest that it was to preserve a lawsuit? Yeah, sure. I guess. But I disagree that there are "more straightforward explanation. It's an attempt to save face, with an unknown motive. And nothing that has come out of State College in the last week suggests that anyone involved in this should be given the benefit of the doubt.
November 16th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
He gave testimony to a grand jury implicating his superiors in perjury and failing to report suspected abuse. Whether or not he reported the original crime to somebody outside the institution is irrelevant; he's got whistleblower status because of his cooperation with the investigation of the alleged wrongdoing of Schultz and Curley.
November 16th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^
Interesting argument. You may be right. But the school would argue he wasn't put on "indefinite leave" for the grand jury testimony. He was put on leave for whatever he did or didn't do in 2002.
<br>
<br>
November 15th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^
Bullshit if he did that it would have been in the grand jury, but someone does need to look into the local police force for the lack of an investigation in 99, the shitshow that is state college needs to be brought down.
November 15th, 2011 at 8:54 PM ^
Grand jury report indicts Sandusky for what he did. McQueary's part is proof that the PSU AD and Official in charge of campus police committed perjury.
The details re: did he talk to police were not necessary for the indictment.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
this would change everything. EVERYTHING.
That being said, given the inconsistency of the grand jury testimony with his current version of events, it seems fair to skeptical.
This story still has some twists and turns left, it seems.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
This needs to be taken to federal court, there are to many people at the state level who aren't telling the truth.