McQueary email: I did go to the police

[RamboLiberal]

(CBS/AP) STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - Mike McQueary told a friend from Penn State that he stopped an alleged assault by Jerry Sandusky on a 10-year-old boy in 2002 and went to the police about it.

In the email dated Nov. 8 from McQueary's Penn State account and made available to The Associated Press by his friend on Tuesday, the assistant coach writes that he stopped the sexual assault and discussed it with police afterward.

"I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right," he says. "I had to make tough impacting quick decisions."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57325469/mcqueary-email-i-did-go-to-the-police/?tag=stack

[JuniperLea]

1. Yeah? Where's the police report?

Sorry, I'm not buying.

[izquierdista]

2. Maybe the cop who took it was a Penn State fan.

Consider how far down on the food chain McQueary was.

[JVS]

11. It should be remembered that Schultz, one of the two people indicted by the grand jury...

was in charge of overseeing the actions of PSU campus police. Since Schultz and Curley have been indicted on this, while McQueary's testimony has been considered credible and his and Paterno's conduct has been labeled cooperative with the inquiry, I'm willing to entertain the idea that this was a coverup from above and not below.

[markpkessinger]

75. He did speak to Schultz -- something like 10 days after the fact n/t

[SugarShack]

18. Maybe the cop was trained by Robert Wadman, former police chief of Omaha! Google Franklin Coverup

The cops protected the pedophiles in that scandal too...they went to the parties too. Robert Wadman impregnated a 15 yr old girl at a party.

[pnwmom]

6. Who says there isn't a police report? Have you checked them?

[jberryhill]

38. There is a thing called journalism...

[JuniperLea]

61. And there's a thing called testimony...

And another called contradictory statements... and another called bald faced lies.

[JuniperLea]

59. You can't be serious...

You don't think one would be out there by now? Give me a fucking break. That's crazy shit.

I guess you missed the part where it was told that this come-lately email contradicts his court testimony. You don't think a police report would be part of that testimony? Jesus God... you sure can reach in the defense of the indefensible.

:eyes:

[Spazito]

3. How long afterward did he discuss it with the police afterward....

is a big question to me. If it was very soon after the rape and his report was covered up, that's one thing. If, however, the discussion took place years later during the current investigation, well, that is a completely different thing.

I hope it is the former because it would mean he did, indeed, do the right thing at the time even if others certainly did not.

[leeroysphitz]

4. We're through the looking glass people.

Who knows just how far up the ladder this thing goes?

[shanti]

5. oh right

he's just saying this now? CYA is in full swing, methinks!

[TorchTheWitch]

26. He isn't saying it - his friend is

His friend provided the email to the press. After receiving the email from the friend the press went to McQuery. McQuery has been totally silent through all this until the email being presented.

The bigger question is - when did McQuery send the email to his friend? If it was very recent (especially after this story broke) than it could look like a CYA attempt. But if it was some time before whether soon after the incident or any time after that up until the story broke than I can't see how it would be CYA.

Considering that it was Shultz who oversaw the campus police, and he was one of the ones intent on covering this up I have no problem believing that he thwarted any police investigation. He could do that. I've always been rather squeamish about university police departments since their ultimate boss is the university and not an elected local government.

[SidDithers]

29. The story in the OP says the e-mail was dated Nov 8...

Since the year is not specified, that means the e-mail was dated Nov 8, 2011.

Last week.

Sid

[newspeak]

72. he could have gone to the police

I mean if the first complaint was in 1998 to the DA's office and nothing was done. Maybe it's a whole lot of CYA.

[karynnj]

49. It sounds recent and likely in response to the natural question of why he seemed to have done little

It actually makes sense in the (imagined) context that this friend was startled that a friend of his did nothing to stop the rape. McQuery has been silent - very possibly because he was asked to be. But, just looking at any DU thread on it showed that his reputation was being absolutely destroyed.

Assuming that what he wrote his friend was truthful, the response was likely intended to be private and he just wanted to tell his friend that he was being misjudged.

This is, of course, the most positive possibility and the story may be more complicated.

[abelenkpe]

7. This story is so confusing

When will there be a trial where all the facts will be sorted? Anyone know?

[fishwax]

20. I think Sandusky's preliminary hearing is December 7

So it's going to be a couple of months before the actual trial starts, I think.

[sad sally]

32. Anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day

[melissaf]

8. Cue the crickets

from all those who accused McQueary of being an inhuman monster.

[beac]

9. Assuming this email isn't 100% CYA BS (which I think it likely is), did McQueary do

ANYTHING to make sure it never happened to another kid? NO. He supported Sandusky's charity for YEARS afterwards. "Inhuman monster" might be a little too strong, but "weak, self-interested coward" about covers it.

[melissaf]

10. I'm pretty sure

a lot of people have been equating McQueary to an inhuman monster, at least that's the sense I got. I mean, this is one of the key aspects of the story that everyone fixated on when it first broke. It was even part of Jon Stewart's Daily Show segment. Everyone has been united in condemning McQueary--even, I believe, douchebag Corbett, who may have had his own part in the cover-up.

And now it turns out that the big walk-out on a kid being raped might be a myth. How many people do you think are going to admit they were wrong, especially in the media?

[beac]

12. Don't you get that it doesn't MATTER if McQueary

"made sure it stopped" that night b/c he did NOTHING to make sure Sandusky could never do it again and he actually SUPPORTED the organization that he damn well knew Sandusky was using to find his victims?

If, as he is now claiming in emails to his friends, McQueary "made sure it stopped" why didn't tell that to the Grand Jury? He told the GJ he "froze", left and called his dad. Why would he leave the ONLY detail that doesn't paint him in a TERRIBLE light when testifying and only bring it up later to his friends? Perhaps b/c he was under oath in the GJ and trying to make himself look like less of a coward in his email?

Remember, his identity was protected in the GJ report and maybe he never thought his name would get out so no one would find out how badly he mishandled the situation.



edited for typo

[TorchTheWitch]

36. why do you assume McQuery "damn well knew" Sandusky got his victims

from the foundation? At the time all McQuery knew was that Sandusky assaulted one unknown boy who he had no way of knowing where he came from since even now no one knows who he was. At the time he didn't know anything about any other victims either.

As for the email and the Grand Jury Report, the report doesn't say he froze... it says he was shocked and distraught, that both Sandusky and the boy saw him witnessing the incident and that he left immediately for his office to call his father. The "made sure it stopped" comment is written by the author of the article who did not quote either the email or the Grand Jury report using their own language to make that point (and very well may be embellishing that point). More than likely what actually occurred is that when both Sandusky and the boy saw him witnessing the incident Sandusky would have stopped himself and fled in the fear that McQuery would come after him and punch his lights out and bodily haul his ass to the police.

The Grand Jury Report is a brief summary of the important bits of all the testimony and naturally is not going to contain everything that a testifying witness said. It does not even contain testimony from all the testifying witnesses... there were something like 40+ witnesses that testified. Going by the report it appears that the important points they were noting concerning McQuery's testimony was what exactly he witnessed and what all occurred afterward with who he notified, who became notified and what occurred because due to that. It also notes that he was never questioned by the campus police, not that he never called them, and I find that phrase curious... if he did not ever call the police why did the report say he was never questioned by the police rather than the police were not notified by him? The report noting that the campus police didn't question him about the incident does make it sound as though they HAD been notified by someone. Keep in mind that Shultz, one of the administrators that was arrested and who the Grand Jury believed was lying, oversaw the campus police department. Considering that it was Shultz who was involved in a cover-up isn't it likely that had the police been notified that it was him that shut down any investigation? He was certainly in a position to do so.

[beac]

45. OK, mea culpa. He only "damn well knew" that Sandusky raped one kid and he

never did a damn thing to make sure Sandusky never raped another. And he only "damn well knew" Sandusky had unlimited access to other vulnerable children through his charity and yet McQueary participated in that damn charity's golf tournament the very same year as the rape, and the year after too and several other damn events with child-rapist Sandusky over the years.


The "made sure it (was) stopped" comment is from McQueary's own ass-covering email, BTW (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7239609/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-text-mike-mcqueary-email)-- an email he asked the recipients to keep "off the record", so I am honoring McQueary's wishes and only going by his GJ testimony where he made NO mention of doing anything to make sure the rape stopped.

The GJ goes into great detail about the minutes b/w the time he heard "slapping sounds" and when he left the building. Why would they eliminate something he did or said to stop the rape? It only says that he looked both the boy and Sandusky in the eye AND THEN LEFT THE SCENE.

If Sandusky "ran away" as you posited in your imaginary scenario, why didn't McQueary then grab that poor child and take him straight to the police?

[TorchTheWitch]

70. McQuery isn't superman

and wasn't in any position to make damn sure he never raped another child. That's the job of the police and the courts. Clearly it became obvious to McQuery that nobody was doing anything about it, and if he did call the police and they ended up ignoring it, just what the hell do you expect him to do? Go after the guy and shoot him? NOBODY did anything to personally make sure Sandusky raped another child, and I'm hardly just talking about the superiors to him covering it up. MANY MANY people witnessed incidents of Sandusky harming a child and not a one of them even did as much as McQuery did in reporting it to SOMEONE in authority. Yet it is only McQuery getting raked over the coals. Why is that? Why is the janitor and all his co-workers that he told immediately after he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a boy not getting raked over the coals as well and infinitely more so because not a one of them ever notified ANYONE? Just why is it that of all the many many people that witnessed Sandusky's behavior it is only McQuery getting bludgeoned by his actions/inactions when he was the ONLY one that went so far as to report it to someone in authority?

As for why the report doesn't mention anything about what McQuery did to stop the rape, as I already said it isn't relevant to be included in this summary unless he did something that could be construed as criminal (like beating him up) to try to stop it. McQuery isn't the perp here. The summary of his testimony only includes the most important bits the vast majority of which concerns what occurred with whom afterward. If in my "imaginary" yet most likely scenario of what did occur that upon realizing he was being witnessed assaulting the boy Sandusky fled, then there is nothing to even note about what McQuery did to stop the rape because the fact of his being noticed witnessing it was plenty enough for it to stop. Just because it isn't in the report - which AGAIN is only a VERY brief summary - doesn't mean something did or didn't happen. It only means it wasn't considered important enough to note in the report. You're behaving as though this summary report is the entire testimony of McQuery, that if it isn't noted in the report it didn't happen, and that what he did to stop the rape is an important point that should have been noted in the summary report when it isn't since the Grand Jury is not concerned with moral obligations but legal ones. Is there something you aren't getting about the fact that with 40+ witnesses that testified only a scant handful are mentioned in the summary report AT ALL? Did you not also notice that the report does not mention anything about what the janitor did concerning stopping Sandusky assaulting a boy in the shower, and the only reason we can figure out that he must not have done anything or been seen by Sandusky is that a fellow janitor witnessed Sandusky and the boy leaving the locker room shortly after the incident was witnessed holding hands and that they said good night to this fellow janitor?

Did it also not occur to you that McQuery attended the Second Mile functions specifically in order to keep and eye on Sandusky and let him know he was watching him seeing that he already knew that all of his superiors weren't doing anything about what he reported to them and as far as he knew he was the only one other than those superiors that knew Sandusky was a child molester? If it was you that witnessed Sandusky assault a boy and knew that the superiors you told covered it up one of whom also controlled the police dept. would you avoid those functions in some sort of protest or purposely attend them to keep and eye on Sandusky and make sure he knew you were doing so in an attempt to keep him from molesting any boys there?

[beac]

74. This thread is about McQueary, which is why we're discussing MCQUEARY and not all the other

people who dropped the ball on this. Just b/c McQueary is one of MANY people who failed and covered up, doesn't make him any less guilty.

As for McQueary attending functions to "keep an eye" on Sandusky?? :crazy: Really, that might be the worst bit of nonsense I've seen posted so far on this case.

[madmom]

67. Then why did he leave the kid there? What happened after he left? Who is the boy?

[NashVegas]

14. I'm Prepared To Wait

For more documented evidence one way or the other, before I condemn McQuery. There are powerful people with high motivation to completely destroy his credibility.

I do wonder, how many here on DU have any experience with whistle-blowing? If I'm correct in suspecting this might not be a lone incident, it's entirely possible he felt he'd have no career at all if he went public with no documented proof.

[beac]

16. While I agree with you that McQueary put his career before the safety of children, he

was NOT a "whistle blower." Sandusky was not a PSU employee at the time of the rape. If McQueary had walked in on a random non-employee raping a child, would anyone argue that Paterno was the correct person to report that to (and 24 hours later!)? No.

McQueary should have grabbed that child and taken him to the police that very night. Period.



edited for typo

[melissaf]

21. He's a whistle blower for the COVER-UP

He seems, in fact, to be the only major witness they have to the cover-up.

[beac]

23. No, no, no, he is NOT.

He didn't blow any whistle. He got subpoenaed to testify in front of the GJ after a VICTIM came forward and accused Sandusky.

McQueary DID NOT do anything voluntarily except not lie under oath. You MIGHT be able to argue he turned "state's witness" but that's not the same as whistle-blowing.

[melissaf]

25. As far as I know,

the reason he hasn't been fired by Penn State is because he is protected under the whistle-blower law. So SOMEONE out there in prosecutor land considers him a whistle blower.

[beac]

27. As far as you know... got a link for that?

PSU has only said there are "complexities" and that could include "We don't want every damn one of our employees to look so obviously guilty, so we'll keep the low-man on the cover-up pole on the payroll for now."

And what the hell does the prosecutor have to do with it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. He does seem like the only witness to any supposed cover-up

That's for damn sure.

The cover up charges boil down to McQueary's word versus that of Curley and Schultz, both of whom explicitly denied McQueary's characterization. The Grand Jury believed McQueary, and indicted Curley and Schultz. Indictments are easier to get than convictions, however, especially on he said/he said perjury charges.

One thing is clear: McQueary's phone and email communications since the story broke are almost certainly making the prosecutor's cringe, since their whole case against Curley and Schultz apparently rests on McQueary's credibility. Indeed, they don't even have the victim to support McQueary's story, though Sandusky claims to know who the victim is.

[riderinthestorm]

22. What if its true McQueary did step in and stop Sandusky, and during that, the boy ran off?

We have absolutely no idea what happened that night. Most kids if they saw an opportunity to run, would have bolted as soon as the offender was distracted. We have powerful forces attempting to construct a narrative and I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with it.

Schulz, the chief of campus police is now indicted by the GJ, while McQueary is deemed a credible witness? Aren't you a tad bit skeptical that perhaps the Penn State PTB were involved in hushing this up, including the police?

Its probably time to step back and wait for some real facts to emerge. There's some weird shit happening here with the GJ report and how this is being spun.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Probably some time to step back and wait

Yeah, I'd say so. Mt reactions to the Victim #2 narrative in the presentment went something like this: horror, anger, um what?, wtf?, wait, what?, and resting now on: Mmmm, I dunno about all that.

It's off. It might be the write up, or something else, but that narrative is off.

Probably time.

[beac]

35. We do not have "no idea" what happened that night, We have McQueary's specific and

detailed GJ testimony as to what happened that night.

If he "stopped it" and the kind ran away, then why didn't McQueary say that in the GJ? Why did he say he "froze", left and called his dad? Why would he leave an important detail like that out? A detail that would have made him look MUCH better in the eyes of the GJ and now, in the eyes of the public.

The GJ finding his testimony "credible" is not the same as the GJ saying he's a good person who did the right thing. That's not their role. They believed what he said under oath-- which was that he saw the rape, was shocked, went to his office, called his dad, left and went to his dad's house and, on the advice of his dad, told Paterno the next day.

As for "constructing a narrative", you yourself were the one just the other day constructing the narrative that McQueary was one of Sandusky's victims and that's why he froze and didn't call the police.

Until we have further testimony UNDER OATH, I think we should stick to what and only what McQueary testified to in the Grand Jury.

[fishwax]

37. just a quick clarification: Schultz wasn't the chief of campus police

He was the VP of Finance and Business. There is an actual chief/director of campus police, who reports not to Schultz but the Assistant VP for Police and Public Safety.

I agree with you that we could all benefit from taking a step back and waiting for some information to shake out on this strange narrative, but I wanted to clarify that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. I believe in 2002 Schultz did have that title

He oversaw the campus police, according to the Grand Jury presentment.

His oversight was no doubt administrative, where the University Park police (which is a law enforcement agency under the definition, and not a security outfit) was under the purview of his department. This is not exactly a "chief of police" as any of us would understand it. His shift to VP of Finance and Business, I think, came later. Could be wrong about that. Unless F&B is the larger administrative unit to whom the Asst VP of Police and Public Safety reports.

[fishwax]

43. You may be right about 2002

I was going on the assumption that Schultz had the same position in 2002 that he had as an interim just recently.

"Unless F&B is the larger administrative unit to whom the Asst VP of Police and Public Safety reports."

I think that is the case--at least currently. Last week, while trying to examine the validity of the the "Paterno did contact the police because SCHULTZ IS THE POLICE" defense (I can't remember what label that reason had in your handy breakdown of the Paterno defenses ;)) I checked out the PSU Police Department's organizational chart (Warning: PDF) which they offer on their web page.

The web page identifies the department as a division of Finance and Business, but the org chart shows an assistant VP above the Director of the University Police (the pdf calls him the director, but the website refers to him as Director/Chief). Presumably the Assistant VP reports to the VP of F&B.

[jberryhill]

39. Cue the evidence

[melissaf]

46. No, cue the backpedaling

See my post at the bottom. When he's confronted by a reporter, he won't say anything. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[jberryhill]

47. delete / wrong place

[JanMichael]

13. I'm beginning to wonder if he isn't just making all of it up. The locker room, etc.

I know it sounds nuts but weirdos have made shit up before to juries and police.

[Spazito]

15. Making it up? Huh? Paterno has acknowledged McQueary spoke to him about it...

The charges against Sandusky cover much more than the 2002 rape, they cover the abuse testified about by the victims themselves before the Grand Jury.

[JanMichael]

17. He couldn't have lied to his father and Paterno? Not saying he did but he could have.

I guess you know for a fact he isn't batshit nuts? You know there are people like that out in the world, yes?

I am not commenting on anything other than I think he may be full of it. That has shit to do with other issues, just him.

[beac]

24. And he just somehow made a wild guess that Sandusky was a child molester?

AND correctly guessed the age and sex of the kind of kids he preferred to molest?

PLEASE.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Or, something more like this

(cut and paste from another post - if I was the defense attorney for Curley and Schultz)

The question rests on how the investigation turned up this 2002 incident at all. They were investigating the 2008 incident, so where did they come across the information about the 2002 incident? They don't have a victim statement, and don't even know who the victim is, so how did they get the information? Likely, somebody at PSU, in the course of the investigation, notes that Sandusky is banned from bringing Second Mile kids on to campus. "Huh?" the investigators say, eyebrows raising, "Why?" Well, there were these series of meetings in 2002 related to something Mike McQueary saw. (I'd even suggest it was Schultz who divulged this to investigators). The prosecutors immediately issue a subpoena for Mike McQueary. But here's the key: McQueary doesn't know why he's being subpoenaed. For all he knows, prosecutors have the victim with a statement and a clear identification of him as the person who stepped in. How does this change things? Curley and Schultz are both arguing that McQueary soft-sold the incident to them, and they're going to explain why in this way: McQueary does, in fact, walk in and see the rape, and does, in fact, leave without much intervention. In concern for his job and because the details of his actions are horrendous, he soft-sells what he saw to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz - actually as "something weird." But when he gets the subpoena, suddenly he's up on a perjury rap relative to the victim's testimony if he goes that route, so he tells the real story to grand jury - a real story he never told Curley and Schultz. His testimony seems persuasive because he actually DID see a rape in progress, and Curley and Schultz look like liars because they have a seeming interest in sweeping the thing under the rug.

The problem for prosecutors is that the more McQueary tries to save himself from the actual consequences of his action, the more that defense account takes on plausibility - since the whole account rests on McQueary as a self-serving careerist.

[JanMichael]

78. Who the fuck knows what a liar is thinking? Not me. nt.

[newspeak]

73. well, if he made it up

then what about the first complaint in 1998? I was watching the news yesterday and they stated that ten more have come forward. Maybe all of those boys are just making it up to make sandusky look bad.:sarcasm:

[JanMichael]

77. I said I was ONLY talking about the waffle! sheesh. nt

[fishwax]

19. that's the first article I've seen that he called the cops, and isn't supported by the email

I've seen a few other stories about this email, but none of them include the claim that he called the police. But while this story says that he did, it doesn't offer any supporting quote from the email, which is odd.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Indeed

Unless McQueary is also contending that the meeting with Schultz was technically a notification of the University Park police.

[abelenkpe]

34. If he didn't call the cops after saying he did doesn't that destroy his credibility

As a witness? Hope that's not the case.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. The prosecutors are no doubt spitting nails over this

[moondust]

42. Confirmed in the Grand Jury report?

Not that I've heard.

[melissaf]

44. So now there's an interview

in which he's not talking anymore. Jesus frakkin Christ, what a nightmare...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/mike-mcqueary-interview-penn-state-sandusky_n_1096025.html?ref=sports

I guess a prosecutor did tell him to shut up.

[MineralMan]

48. Grand Jury Reports Aren't Grand Jury Testimony

They're conclusions of the grand jury. The testimony at the grand jury will be part of the trial. Exactly what McQueary testified to is not known at this time, and I doubt the grand jury transcript is available to the public yet. It will be part of the trial transcript, though, and lawyers for both sides will examine it line by line for discrepancies.

As usual, we're jumping the gun on this stuff. Time will reveal the information that has not yet been revealed.

[Redbear]

50. Thank you for making this crucial point.

The presentment is a summary prepared by someone at the prosecutor's office that the grand jury signs off on. We don't know what McQueary or any of the other witnesses actually said.

A grand jury presentment cannot be used to impeach a witness' future testimony because that presentment is not testimony.

[MineralMan]

62. Thanks. We tend to be very impatient and many people

don't have a clear understanding of how this all works. Justice moves slowly and deliberately. It's always a good idea not to form conclusions before all the facts are available. Grand Jury presentments aren't evidence. They never have been. The evidence will appear in court, and then we can draw some conclusions.

[NashVegas]

53. Exactly

The report uses verbage that says he wasn't questioned by campus police. That leaves room elsewhere. Some. And yet, Gary Schultz oversaw campus police.

[Township75]

51. A shit load of people better hope not.

For the last week there have been a shit load of people bashing McQueary for not doing all the thing they would have done themselves had they been in that position.

If it turns out he did....what happens to their moral chest thumping high ground???

I'm not saying I believe the email...I just think I will let the judicial process play out. Maybe that makes me a bad person for not completely condmening him before the trial.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. If it turns out McQueary is a straight out liar

I wonder if that will reduce chest thumping morality in others. What if Curley and Schultz were telling the truth about McQueary soft-selling the whole thing?

What if there was no "cover-up," but just poor information flow and shitty but routine organizational decisions based on that limited information?

I'm not saying I believe that...I just think I will let the judicial process play out. Maybe that makes me a bad person for not completely condemning them before the trial.

:hi:

[Township75]

56. I don't think your a bad person if you wait for a trial.

That is the smart thing to do. What you wrote could turn out to be the case. That is why I have avoided condemning anyone in this.

Unfortunately, others have not...and man do they get pissed if you don't join in the pretrial condemnation....it threatens their moral high ground.

Keep staying in the clear!

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. For real

:thumbsup:

[NashVegas]

64. Funny Thing ...

I've been off of DU for most of this year, while coping with the fall-out of being in a situation where I was part of a tribe of wonderful but dysfunctional people propping up an alpha male they refused to see as the sociopath he is.

McQuery was in a lose-lose position, no matter what. Even if he is the whitest knight in all of Pennsylvania; he could have gone to the police and newspapers in 2002 and would have been just as villified as he is today. Everyone involved in this shit puts their own intersts first. Everyone. I'd have more respect for him if he'd chosen to try to find another gig away from Penn. I can only imagine he was offered a frigging SWEET deal to stay and keep quiet.

[Avalux]

71. Good post....

remember that McQueary was quarterback for the team in the late 90's; of course he wanted to stay there and coach. Maybe not the best decision in hindsight. I hope he can get a new gig after all this is over. He is a good coach.

[hifiguy]

52. If what he says is true,

and I don't have any particular reason to doubt him, this is going to get even more sordid, because someone up the food chain, either with the cops or PSU, stonewalled McQueary's report. I wonder, wonder who?

[jmg257]

55. He said he talked to police, also that IT stopped, not 'he stopped it'.

"I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me."

Added McQueary: "Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions."

Doesn't sound like he called the cops, hmmm...unless in his email he was defending himself for being a whistleblower and not for 'not doing more'.


I guess we'll see eventaully.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/11/15/penn-state-mcqueary-sandusky.ap/index.html#ixzz1dsl6KEhW

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. What's crucial here is the "and"

He says "I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police..."

That's two different "discussions":

1. Discussions with police
2. Discussions with the official at the university in charge of police

We already know about discussion #2. That's presumably referring to his meeting with Gary Schultz, then heading the administrative unit to which the University Park police (a law enforcement agency under the legal definition) reported. But discussion #1? That's completely unmentioned in the Grand Jury Presentment.

What does he mean, furthermore, that he "had discussions with police." Usually, in standard American English, when we speak with law enforcement about a particular incident, we use the definite article: "I spoke with the police about X." We leave out the definite article when we're referring to police in the abstract, or people who may be police officers that we speak with in unofficial capacities: "A bunch of my friends are police;" "I hang out with police from time to time," "there are a lot of police at that bar..." Is McQueary saying that he talked about this off the record with people who may have been police officers, like high school friends and the like? Is that why he uses the odd "had discussions with" phrasing that DU poster fishwax has correctly pointed to as strange usage in another thread?

What we know now is that the Grand Jury stated nobody from Penn State contacted the police about the incident, presumably including McQueary. So where is this discussion #1 coming from?

[Avalux]

60. That doesn't necessarily mean McQueary didn't talk to police.

Yesterday, reporters tried to gain access to University Police records to determine if McQueary actually filed a report. They REFUSED to give reporters any information. Now what does that mean?

I've been following every detail of this and being from the area and being an alumna, am somewhat emotionally involved as well.

I believe McQueary. He was low man on the totem pole and has absolutely nothing to gain from lying about seeing what he did and reporting it. He could have gone along with Shultz, Curly and Paterno and said he saw "horsing around". He didn't.

Seems to me he's trying to be scapegoated by his superiors.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Well

"Now what does that mean?"

It means they're exempt from the 2008 open records law and following University policy. I certainly agree that PSU should waive those exemptions immediately and release all relevant records to the press today, if not sooner. :-)

I'm an alumnus, too, and lived in State College for close to ten years.

There are plenty of good reasons why McQueary could tell Paterno, Curley, and Schultz one thing, and the Grand Jury something else, the most obvious being that he didn't know why he was being subpoenaed, and thought perhaps they had the victim himself waiting in the wings to impeach him and jam him up with a perjury rap.

This thing could go a lot of ways.

[Avalux]

68. Thanks for th explanation -

and lucky us - being alumni. x(

You're correct that it could go a lot of ways; it's prudent to wait until the trial to make any condemnations. Except for Sandusky; I was horrified he actually chose to do a public interview. Now his attorney is saying they've found the alleged victim from the 2002 shower incident and that he will testify "nothing happened".

I had to chuckle at McQueary's response when asked about his emotions "crazy....like a snow globe". I can only imagine.

[Ganja Ninja]

63. Frankly I think a lot of people are taking their anger out on the wrong guy.

So many people are absolutely certain McQueary walked away and did nothing yet they have almost no real information of any kind. It is very possible what he says is true. He could have done everything right. The university officials, the cops, the politicians and the people in charge of the second mile charity all had motivation to cover this up. There are prior incidences at the university that appear to have been covered up as well. And yet McQueary is being crucified by the uninformed as if they know all the circumstances.

[AngryAmish]

66. He could have done everything the right way, but he is still ginger.

[Avalux]

69. That's just mean. n/t

[NashVegas]

76. Some Of Us Like That

but he's still fucked, either way.