Hard-Baughlls

October 27th, 2016 at 6:48 PM ^

Perhaps nobody besides the PSU football program, Joe Pa's legacy and the PSU fans were bigger victims in this entire scandal. Am I forgetting someone? Hmmm, maybe....no, nothing off the top of my head.

Glad they finally got it right and are acknowledging and making ammends to the true victims here.

Go Blue in MN

October 27th, 2016 at 7:47 PM ^

The only entity that did anything in this story is the jury, which found in favor of McQueary against PSU.  The jury didn't have before it the question of what compensation the true victims are owed.  I know you were attempting sarcasm but I don't understand your point. 

coldnjl

October 27th, 2016 at 6:52 PM ^

The people of Pennsylvania need to spend more on this rediculous episode...and how did he become defamed...he didn't help the innocent...

Blueblood2991

October 27th, 2016 at 6:53 PM ^

 

Since 2012, the school has paid more than $93 million to settle claims from 32 Sandusky accusers and university officials have acknowledged the school bears some responsibility to the victims of its former assistant football coach, who is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence for the sexual abuse of 10 boys.

So lawyer fees aside, the victims get $2.9 mil each and McQueary gets 7.3.

#Justice

softshoes

October 27th, 2016 at 6:59 PM ^

PSU fucked it up. If they had let O'Brian hire on and then bring in his own staff that would have been the end of it. No, they had to fire Red and get the jump on "it's not Joe's fault." I find him a coward for walking out on that kid in the shower but PSU owes him every penny.

NittanyFan

October 27th, 2016 at 7:30 PM ^

(1)  barring McQueary from campus from mid-November 2011 onwards.  This was positioned as "being for McQueary's safety" but McQueary never asked for such an action to occur.

(2)  not paying out McQueary a Bowl Bonus for that 2011 season.  Every other assistant who had a contractual right to a Bowl Bonus got one.  McQueary didn't.

O'Brien was likely never going to retain McQueary --- with the exception of a couple, O'Brien brought in his own folk.   Doing so was O'Brien's right.  

A couple of dumb moves (ESPECIALLY the Bowl payout - which was the decision of Dave Joyner, the interim AD that replaced Tim Curley in November 2011) prior to O'Brien being hired set the stage for this lawsuit.

I don't think any of those 2 decisions above were made from the POV of "let's pin this on McQueary instead of others."  If PSU administrators were looking to pin things solely on McQueary, they never commission an independent Freeh Report.  But that's a bit of a tangential issue.

NittanyFan

October 27th, 2016 at 7:54 PM ^

the Pennsylvania AG didn't exactly do the best job in keeping McQueary's identity unknown.  

The report said "On March 1, 2002 a then-28-year old Penn State graduate assistant entered the Lasch Building and ........"

While the Grand Jury report didn't mention McQueary explicitly --- everyone knew within a couple hours.  Just do some math and go down the list of 2002 graduate assistants.

But the reason for me bringing this up: let's say the Grand Jury report was very anonymous about who this assistant coach was.  I think in that scenario, these 2 same things occur: (1) Paterno still gets fired a few days after the Grand Jury release, and (2) the Freeh Report still gets commissioned 10 days after the Grand Jury release.

That's why I'm not sure it was a prelude to scape-goating.  More dumb vs. malicious.  Dave Joyner, the AD who didn't want to pay the Bowl Bonus --- he WAS dumb in his 18 months on the job (he's highly profiled in John Bacon's Fourth and Long book).

Mr Miggle

October 27th, 2016 at 8:24 PM ^

do you think Paterno gets fired when he did? Does the NCAA still act on theFreeh report if McQueary's account of reporting what he saw to Paterno isn't a part of it? Does the report even get commissioned or is there just an internal investigation? I think the last two questions aren't so much about what PSU would have done, but the NCAA.

I don't see it mattering much on the questions above whether the grand jury protected McQueary's identity. I'd expect the media would have figured out who it was pretty quickly. I suppose it would have worked out better for PSU if that kept them from acting against McQueary. On the other hand, it could have been even worse if they were the ones working to uncover his identity.

I'm inclined to think his treatment was both dumb and malicious. He's the one who dragged JoePa directly into the scandal, plus the other higher ups. Add in that he didn't do more to stop Sandusky and he's making enemies all over. While I doubt there was ever an intent to scapegoat McQueary, there may also have been a thought to keep that option open, depending on what came out of the report.

.

NittanyFan

October 27th, 2016 at 8:52 PM ^

then when Sandusky gets indicted (as was likely inevitable) --- there are plenty of other victims in the Grand Jury presentment but there is no "Victim 2."  There are no direct mentions of Paterno in the Grand Jury report.  The Grand Jury presentment provides no direct connection between Sandusky and PSU football and Paterno.  

So, no, in this hypothetical scenario Paterno likely doesn't get fired in the days immediately following a Sandusky indictment.

PSU admins fired Paterno within 72 hours of the story breaking - he coached zero games following the story breaking.  I think that was the right decision.  But an honest argument could be made that in those first few days (I'm talking about those first few days and not talking about NOW, before anyone jumps down my throat) --- PSU admins scape-goated Paterno more than they did McQueary.  

McQueary wasn't fired.  Paterno, who wasn't charged and was actually given credit by PA's deputy state prosecutors in those first few days, he was fired.

Chitown Kev

October 28th, 2016 at 1:35 AM ^

go to the police and that the police denied it.

Given the reputaton that JoePa had in seeping the crimes of his players under the rug (particularly late in his career) I'm inclined to believe McQueary on that note but we will never really know, I suppose.

JamieH

October 27th, 2016 at 11:51 PM ^

Life isn't an action movie.

 

He was a bottom-rung grad assistant who saw one of the guys who practically ran the place doing something horrible.  I'm sure at first he was completely stunned by it all.    Did he handle it "perfectly"?  Maybe not, but he told f'ing Joe Paterno about it.  It is Paterno's fault that it didn't get stopped, not McQuery. 

kyeblue

October 27th, 2016 at 8:15 PM ^

i know Schiano had witnessed and reported to JoePa and kept quiet until this day. I was surprised that he never took a stand as a witness. mcQueary at least stood up to testify against Sandusky and helped to brought the justice for the victims. Among all those who were part of the Penn State football program and high ups in its Atheletic department, mcQueary is the only one who actually did something positive for the victims.

grumbler

October 27th, 2016 at 9:34 PM ^

He DID stop the incident in progress, by going around and slamming lockers to make it sound like some team had just entered the locker room.

He didn't confront Sandusky right then, but I'm not sure how many people would have.  It was a bizarre situation and he probably wasn't sure what to think.  I think that a lot of people would have done what he did:  indirectly stop the incident and then find someone wiser to help sort out what should be done.  He went to his father as his very next step.

JamieH

October 27th, 2016 at 11:55 PM ^

All the holier than thou stuff where people talk about how they would have beaten up Sandusky on the spot is bullshit.  Outside of Paterno, Sandusky RAN that place.  It would be like saying you would beat up Greg Mattison or Tyrone Wheatley in the Michigan Stadium locker room if you saw them doing something bad (and neither of them have nearly the tenure or power than Sandusky had).  Nice tough talk on the internet, but total bullshit. 



McQueary may not have been "perfect" but at least he tried to do something, unlike all the a-holes at PSU that covered this shit up. 

 

WolverineHistorian

October 28th, 2016 at 12:52 AM ^

Beating the tar out of Sandusky might have traumatized the kid even more.

I wish he had gotten him out of there. But once you've seen something that gives you the shock of your life, it's hard to say what anyone would truly do.

BeatIt

October 28th, 2016 at 6:11 AM ^

i would have done. i think i may have at least asked the boy if he was alright. i can understand being shocked in a situation like that and not knowing what to do. but just like the janitor that witnessed sandusky in the shower with a kid, he knew he would get fired if he went to the police. thats just the way things were in happy valley as King Joe ran everything pertaining to the football program and probably more.

stephenrjking

October 27th, 2016 at 7:09 PM ^

People griping about this are taking the side of the PSU administration, which is pretty cheesy.

McQueary was allowed to be dragged through the mud by Penn State for the crime of... reporting this to his superiors. 

PSU allowed the outrage to build as a way to shirk the blame from Paterno and the administration, who failed to act. If McQueary could take the fall, they could lower the hook. They suspended him. His career is dead. And all because he reported what he saw.

It is important that they get punished for this, because in situations like this, there is a real-life temptation in people who see or detect something to let it go. Because the trouble you go through in the process of reporting and speaking to police is a huge burden, and could be worse if people don't like that you "snitched." 

If McQueary had kept his mouth shut and pretended he saw nothing, no one would know about it. He would be, at worst, a casualty of circumstance.

If PSU is allowed to wreck McQueary in this, the next person who sees something is more likely to think, "maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut and pretend I didn't see anything. No one will ever know." And they'd be right... if PSU can do this, someone who just keeps silent is better off.

But the victims are not.

The money is more than the victims are getting; that's unfortunate, but this jury was not tasked with evaluating his claim in light of the victims, just in light of what was presented at the trial.