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 5:24 PM ^
If this is true then there was a monumental coverup.
November 15th, 2011 at 8:20 PM ^
you can take that for granted anyway.
November 15th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
operating independently or in concert, were involved with/enabled (via cover up) exploitation and/or sexual molestation of children in the later 1990s/early 2000s:
- Local Police- in a cover up
- University- cover up at the highest levels of the administration
- Campus Police- who did not act on the information
- Local church (10 area Priests accused of molestation, settled $10M in damages http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-11-08/penn-state-abuse…)
If you believe McQueary, this implies that children in that area had no chance in hell of finding any advocates to protect them save their own parents or Fire Fighters. That is such a sad thought, I don't think I can really get my head around it. Surely the Police were not also involved.
November 16th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
about the Ray Gricar disappearance and came across this comment:
After Ray Gricar disappeared, Montour County DA Robert Buehner and Clinton County DA Ted McKnight asked Pennsylvania's State Attorney General Tom Corbett to investigate. Corbett refused. Corbett also refused to investigate Jerry Sandusky during Corbett's six years in office (2004-10). Linda Kelly was named Corbett's replacement in 2011, and promptly filed charges against Sandusky. Corbett is now the Governor of Pennsylvania and sits on Penn State's Board of Trustees.
November 16th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
wanted McQueary to be locked away for life? Or the people that were making death threats. Are they going to apologize now or take back what they said? I understand how terrible this has been for the alleged victims but in my opinion what's been lost in this whole situation is due process. People have no problem convicting these guys in the 'court of public opinion' and already view them as guilty. Its disappointing that the reaction has been so negative so quickly, as opposed to being rational about the situation and letting the facts come out in court. What ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
November 16th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
PSU Police says McQueary never talked to them...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45321304/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
November 15th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
Is JoePa still to blame?
November 15th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
Joe, as the authority figure at Penn State, could have booted Sandusky from the football facility. Permenantly. Instead, with (at least) two incidents and allegations (2002 and 1999), Sandusky was allowed to continue using the PSU facilities with impugnity.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^
You don't pin blame for something like this on one person (the failure to stop Sandusky, not the acts themselves which are all obviously on one sick monster). If Joe Paterno simply told the AD and the VP of whatever and then did absolutely nothing upon continuing to see Sandusky, then he failed the victims that followed. An inexcusable mistake that rightfully cost him is job.
November 16th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^
I would claim he's to blaim even moreso
November 15th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
Did Joe know that he went to the police and didn't call them because McQueary already called them?
November 15th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^
November 15th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
Joe had plenty of opportunity to explain his actions or lack thereof. Instead he decided to draw a line in the sand and challenge the BOT to show they run the school, which they did
November 15th, 2011 at 8:20 PM ^
he might fullfilled the minimum requirement but he does demand no respect. Even if he played a passive role in the cover-up, he is still part of the cover-up. He led his football program into disgrace and his firing is fully justified.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
Interesting. There my be all sorts of issues if his story to CBS or in that e-mail differs from what he told the Grand Jury. There could be perjury issues. This is also a nightmare for the prosecutor if its star witness starts changing parts of his story.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^
With all due respect, I think the prosecutors will hand their hats on the testimony of the numerous victims in this case. As long as their stories are corroborated and similar, I think Sandusky is done. McQueary is just icing on the cake in the case against Sandusky, in my opinion.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
November 15th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^
While McQueary has changed his story, he hasn't changed the part about what he saw Sandusky doing.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^
And you don't even know if McQueary changed his story. The D.A. might not have been too high on pointing out police failures during the investigation. If the D.A. never asked about McQueary taking it to the police, it never would have made the Grand Jury report.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^
The indictment, to make a short story even shorter, says that he left the showers "immediately." It also says that he was never questioned by the university police or anyone else doing an investigation. I suppose one could "talk" to the police (or whatever word McQueary is using now) without being "questioned" by them, but that seems like a stretch.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^
I forgot about the "never questioned by the university police line." Maybe he talked to non-university police?
I also think there's room for ambiguity as to his conduct in the locker room. Leaving "immediately" isn't necessarily inconsistent with him having made sure it stopped, at least in his mind. It says both the boy and Sandusky saw him, it's hard to imagine that the rape continued after that. We all wish he had done more, e.g. slamming Sandusky's head into the wall, taking the boy to the hospital, etc., but there's certainly room in the statement to assume that he didn't just creep back out of the locker room.
November 15th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
And let's not forget that the indictment isn't exactly an unassailable account of the true facts. There's a reason why we hold a trial after an indictment. Ever wonder about the truth of the allegations in the Duke Lacrosse Indictment?
November 15th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
November 15th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
The duke case isn't the only example of a Grand Jury report filled with bullshit claims that never make it to court... (or fall appart when they do)
In the McMartin Preschool case, for example, the whole country was convinced that they had raped all those kids. It's not until later that we find out that most of that case was complete hogwash.
Now I'm not saying that Sandusky didn't do it. All I'm saying is that I don't know what happed. The people that act like they do are either full of crap or don't know what they're talking about.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:47 AM ^
a key prosecution witness. If he changed his story several times he is going to be subject to impeachment based on his credibility of lack thereof. "Mr. McQuery," is it fair to say that you have changed your story on many things in the past?" "Are you lying now or where you lying then? And yadayada. May not be important, may be important. The indictment could be quashed if the information leading to the indictment turns out to be inacurrate or misleading. The prosecution wants McQuery to keep his mouth shut at this point, and given that he is currently not getting prosecuted, that is exactly what he should be doing. What he is saying is having no positive impact for victims. He should be playing Madden, eating chips and salsa and thanking god that he is not the subject of any criminal investigation. If he keeps talking he likely will be.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
Well, OK, star witness might have been a bit of a reach. But, if this goes to trial, the prosecution will build its case witness by witness. Sandusky will deny everything (save the showers) and his attorney will have to attack credibility of his accusers. We don't know what issues the victims might have. Remember, these were kids from toubled backgrounds before what happened happened. They might have memory issues (they were very young) or might have lived troubled lives with incidents that might call their honesty into question. McQueary doesn't have any of that. He might not be the star, but he is very, very important. Statements he makes now that differ from his other testimony could be damaging. Once you can ask the question " Are you lying now or were you lying then" the answer just doesn't matter.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:15 PM ^
that the prosecutors aren't happy with this, but I don't think it's at all fatal to their case (FWIW) re: Victim 2.
November 15th, 2011 at 9:35 PM ^
Including McQueary's testimony in the grand jury report(and the release of that document) was just a political move against the penn state admin. His testimony is worthless because there is no victim. Tagging on the perjury charges just proves my point. (the only evidence behind those is a he said she said thing that's going to collapse as soon as it reaches court) The DA (and probably the governor) wanted to shuffle up the whole Penn State admin for some reason.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:55 AM ^
All that was published was a Grand Jury Summary. The entire testimony of everyone hasn't been released. All that has been published is a brief summary of McQueary's testimony. Unless you have seen the full testimony, there is no way to know if he is saying something different now than what he said under oath. I think the summary of his testimony was very vague, as he was just a witness and not a victim, and it may not have told the whole story. The media picked up on this, and without knowing for sure, vilified McQueary for running scared and calling his dad when that may not have been exactly what happened. I am sure he has full legal counsel and is being advised before going on CBS and sending emails that would lead him to perjure himself.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
Its my understanding that the emails were all sent recently in response to the allegations and the tarnishing of his name in the press. If so, they are a lot less effective than if sent back when everything occurred. That said, this is a perfect example of why not to rush to judgment and to allow everyone their day in court (even though I already found him guilty in my mental court of law).
November 15th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
I've been very frustrated with everybody rushing to judgment and willing to burn everybody at the stake. Let things play out, we're not the ones investigating or involved.
November 15th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
I agree completely. It's almost sad how quick people are at rushing to judgement.
November 15th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
Especially if you consider that if this were happening at Michigan, we'd all be preaching to other fans about "innocent until proven guilty" and other similar lines of thought. People keep wanting the police and courts and the university to act on assumptions and rumors, rather than due process.
November 15th, 2011 at 8:35 PM ^
November 15th, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^
I was talking more from a fan perspective. MSC is a badass and I think she'd definitely handle things better than PSU's adminstration did. But It's easy to say that because we're evaluating from outside the situation. If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be a great amount of Michigan fans doing exactly what PSU fans are and trying rationalize what happened.
I personally think alot of fans should get off their high horse and saying "I would have done this or that and blah blah blah". Everyone likes to think they'd act in a specific manner but unless you've dealt with an issue like this before, there's really no way of knowing how one would act. I think we should reserve our harshest judgments until we know all the facts.
November 16th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
MSC a badass? More like a bad ass. She was on watch for the RR hire, which was the worst in history. Don't forget that.
November 15th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
Not saying that this would have happened under Bo, but if he was the one under fire, I wonder how Mary Sue Coleman would have reacted.
November 15th, 2011 at 8:18 PM ^
I would do Casey Anthony right now.
She puts out and is pro-choice? Count me in.
I never rush to judgement.
November 15th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
Rushing to judgement???
There is nothing in this email to change most people's mind on McQueary. He STILL did not stop the act physically and more importantly, he did not make sure that the kid was being abused was okay. He STILL didn't even bother to call 911 right away. What if Sandusky just took him back to his home and raped him some more???
The email does not change the fact that McQueary took a cowardice way out of the situation.
The only new information on this is that he spoke to campus police. I am guessing there will be an explanation that will be consistent with what grand jury find out.
Nothing in this email is even remotely exonerating for McQueary or JoePa.
November 16th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
McQueary says he stopped the rape without resorting to physical violence. What's wrong with that? Is a guy not a hero if he doesn't get himself beaten up?
And how do you know he didn't make sure the kid was okay? We don't know anything about that.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
And he didn't say this earlier because...?
November 15th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
I am guessing it is bc we were murdering his name based on a document that may or may not be complete as the prosecution has it. Now, I am still withholding judgement until the words come from his mouth, but this seems like he was made a martyr for not doing something that he actually did
November 15th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
The entire Grand Jury Testmony hasn't been released. What McQueary says in this article makes alot of sense and fits with the testimony. He didn't stop it physically, but made sure it stiopped, and was there for 30-45 seconds before leaving.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
None of that is in the report.
November 15th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
The police part was always there in the grand jury report. The VP that he went to see along with president Spanier was also the head of the university police. That covers his "I went to the police" portion of his email. But he doesn't say anything about filing a police report or anything like that.
As for breaking it up, I would imagine he "broke it up" the minute Sandusky saw him. All breaking it up has to be is a simple "hey, knock it off and get out of here."
November 15th, 2011 at 10:11 PM ^
Or even looking at him and making sure Sandusky saw him. Probably don't even have to say anything. Not to be crude, but having someone walk in you kind of ruins the moment. I would guess especially when you know damn well you're not even supposed to be having a moment. Because I would hope that Sandusky at least retained the capacity to know that he was a thousand miles out of bounds and be embarrassed at being caught there.
So that might cover "breaking it up" and Schultz might cover "going to the police." If McQueary actually broke it up in a way that we'd hope he might do (which is to say, actually saying something and/or pulling the kid to safety or something), and if he actually went to the police in a way that we'd hope he might do (which is to say, filed a police report and talked on the record) then there's a whole bunch of things that don't add up right. A whole bunch.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
...for drafting and filing a grand jury report? I imagine its based on testimony, but not necessarily accurate in all instances?
November 15th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
Grand jury testimonies typically don't cover every little detail. However, someone needs to tell McQ's lawyer that he needs to keep his mouth shut or Sandusky walks.
November 15th, 2011 at 5:56 PM ^
How in the world would Sandusky walk because of this?