Penn State Asst. Coach McQueary is lawyering up

[RandySF]

Just heard on MSNBC.

[rocktivity]

1. That's not necessarily bad

It all depends on whether he's actually going to stick to his story that he told Paterno and the other Penn State officials that he witnessed a rape as opposed to "inappropriate horsing around." From the http://documents.latimes.com/grand-jury-report-suspected-penn-state-sex-abuse">grand jury report:

...Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a
Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called
Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior...and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting
with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business
Gary Schultz ("Schultz"). The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had
witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building
showers. Curley and Schultz assured the graduate assistant that they would look into it and
determine what further action they would take. Paterno was not present for this meeting...

...Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to them that "inappropriate conduct"
or activity that made him "uncomfortable" occurred in the Lasch Building shower in March
2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant reported anal sex or anything of a
sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely "horsing around." When asked
whether the graduate assistant had reported "sexual conduct" "of any kind" by Sandusky, Curley
answered, "No" twice. When asked if the graduate assistant had reported "anal sex between Jerry
Sandusky and this child," Curley testified, "Absolutely not."

...Schultz testified that...in a subsequent meeting with Curley...the graduate assistant reported
the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and a boy. Schultz was very unsure about what he
remembered the graduate assistant telling him and Curley about the shower incident. He testified
that he had the impression that Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy's
genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and
a boy. While equivocating on the definition of "sexual" in the context of Sandusky wrestling with and
grabbing the genitals of the boy, Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made
was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. However, Schultz testified that the allegations
were "not that serious" and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred."

There is no way on this green earth that I would have allowed Paterno, Curley, Schultz to effectively convict me of being slanderous liar -- I would have let them fire me!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Avalux]

2. I can understand why.....

It's his word against Shultz and Curly and maybe Paterno (he will testify during the trial). In the grand jury report, both Shultz and Curly deny that McQueary gave them the graphic details he gave the grand jury; that's why they were arrested - the grand jury didn't believe them.

He has to for his own protection; the defense will try to make McQueary out to be a liar, especially if Paterno doesn't corroborate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. They have the grand jury transcripts from Paterno's testimony

Paterno either corroborated McQueary's account in front of the Grand Jury or did not. His camp is saying McQueary said no such thing, which would seem an odd public declaration if he testified before the Grand Jury that McQueary did give him the explicit details.

Round and round we go.

[Avalux]

7. The report doesn't state what Paterno told the grand jury.

As of right now, we don't know Paterno's side of this; if he has/will deny McQueary told him the details, I'll be even more angry and disgusted with him.

I konw McQueary could and should have handled the sitation differently. However, he did come forward, did give those details. He's got a rough road ahead as the ex school officials try to make him the scapegoat.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. That's correct

The presentment is not the transcript, though the he said/he said between the Paterno and McQueary camps will surely be cleared up by the transcripts.

[rocktivity]

11. Alternatively, if we are to believe that THEY believed

that McQueary was spreading slanderous lies about Sandusky, why didn't they fire him on the spot?

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Indeed

If McQueary said what he's claimed to have said, those would seem to be the options.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. That's curious

Why would the star witness for the prosecution need a criminal defense attorney?

Did they specify criminal attorney? He'll surely need a civil litigation attorney.

[fishwax]

5. not a criminal attorney, but one who specializes in employment law

I don't think that info was on the MSNBC report, but I saw this headline earlier today ...

"Mike McQueary, Sandusky case witness, hires Harrisburg firm that specializes in employment law": http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/mcqueary_hires_harrisburg_firm.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Oh, that's much different then

He's going to claim whistleblower status to work out a severance package.

I guess that's not really what I would refer to a "lawyering up."

:-)

[rocktivity]

10. But he HASN'T blown any whistles -- and he can't now

If McQueary had formally accused Paterno et al of lying about what he'd told them, THAT could qualify as whistleblowing. But since he effectively went along with the coverup, he can't be a whistleblower now because he hasn't got the credibility.

All the defense would have to ask is "If what you saw was a sexual act, why didn't you at least try to stop it -- because you didn't really see one, or because you realized it would be the perfect weapon with which to blackmail your way into the Paterno organization?"

:headbang:
rocktivity

P.S. Also keep in mind that he did not go directly to Paterno, but to his father -- the university can easily use that as a dereliction of duty or a lack of due diligence, too.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. Thank you

I've been saying, too, that McQueary wasn't and isn't a whistleblower.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. He did blow the whistle ...

... if his attorney can convice the court that he blew the whistle.

He might as well take his best shot. I think his career as coach at Penn State is pretty much toast. Maybe he's untouchable by any university.

[Avalux]

8. Thanks for the additional info. n/t

[Gin]

15. the kid blew the whistle....wonder how McQuery got into the picture

I bet he didn't volunteer the info....it would still be a secret if that victim had not told the school.