McQueary claims he did stop Sandusky:

[Are_grits_groceries]

Peter Alexander
11/14/11 6:41 PM
#BREAKING (1) #Sandusky witness, McQueary email to fmr. teammates: "I did the right thing…you guys know me…" #PennState

PeterAlexander
11/14/11 6:43 PM
#BREAKING (2) McQueary: "... the truth is not out there fully... I didn't just turn and run... I made sure it stopped..."

Peter Alexander
11/14/11 6:44 PM
#BREAKING (3) McQueary: "... I had to make quick tough decisions…" #PennState @NBCNews #Exclusive

If this is true and it wasn't included in the presentment, somebody on the prosecutor's side should correct the record if it doesn't affect the way they plan to prosecute the case. Part of the criticism he has received has been because he allegedly just ran away. This puts him in a different light.

[tabatha]

1. Bob Costas (?) had a report on it.

and said that basically when hMcQueary was seen, it stopped. That is, his mere presence put an end to it. I would think the fact that he did not have to actually get physical to stop it, could have been misunderstood.

After that, he went straight to his office, and phoned his Dad about the next steps - which were to tell Paterno. McQueary went to Paterno's house the next morning, and told him. Paterno then told the next person up the chain.

[cleanhippie]

McQueary is full of shit.

Kudos to him if he did, in fact, stop the rape when he saw it. But that in no way negates his culpability for NOT immediately reporting the rape to the police.

There is no excuse. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.


At the time of the rape. wasn't McQueary a part-time staffer? How soon AFTER he reported this to the administration did he get his full-time gig?

[lbrtbell]

11. +1 - n/t

[dtexdem]

25. McQueary didn't do what he should have; but too many stones are being tossed his way.

No matter what his physical stature and fitness, he was weak in a web of power. He was low man on the coaching squad, and he was in the shadow of Saint Paterno. He did report the incident to Paterno, and that put the ball in Paterno's court. And Paterno did not just lose the ball, he threw it away.

Yes, McQueary should have reported to the police. But there needed, and still needs, to be an infrastructure to encourage that act and protect the whistle-blower. There needs to be a thoroughgoing moral and practical commitment to reporting observations of abuse (as there also needs to be a legal mandate to do so -- something still lacking). Leadership must be committed to this: Paterno SHOULD have immediately reported to the police what McQueary reported to him. There needs to be an institutional commitment to stopping and reporting abuse -- the exact opposite of what happened. And the police need to enforce the law, exactly what the PSU police did not do. We wish that McQueary had done more; but how many of us can be sure we would have done better?

The real culprits:
1) Sandusky, the abuser, of course;
2) Joe Paterno, the authority over the football team, and a considerable power beyond it;
3) the football program, which should have had an anti-abuse infrastructure in place, and which now should be severely sanctioned by the NCAA;
4) the university, which covered up the abuse, acting much as the Catholic Church has done with its own pedophilia scandals;
5) the PSU policy, which did not do its duty but rather covered the whole thing up.

A weak link but not a culprit: McQueary.

[beac]

36. Except that McQueary wasn't a "whistleblower" b/c Sandusky wasn't a PSU employee at the time.

If McQueary had walked in on a different non-employee raping a kid in the shower, no one would argue that Paterno was the right person to report that to (24 hours later, no less.)

The ONLY proper authority to report to was the police. The fact that he didn't means McQueary placed his career and the reputation of PSU above the safety of that child.

And, when it became clear that NOTHING was going to be done to prosecute Sandusky, McQueary kept his mouth shut and even supported Sandusky's charity for years afterward.

McQueary = culprit.



edited for typo

[riderinthestorm]

42. Do you have any proof that McQueary supported Sandusky's foundation? nt

[tblue37]

48. I have read that he continued to show up at their functions and

events.

[riderinthestorm]

Where? My own google search show no hits that McQueary was involved in the 2nd Mile foundation. nt

[beac]

55. .

Described in court papers as distraught about witnessing the 2002 attack, unrelated local newspaper accounts from the time indicate McQueary appeared in the months and years that followed in charity events that Sandusky also took part in, or were to benefit Sandusky's group The Second Mile.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/11/11/penn-state-mike-mcqueary.ap/index.html#ixzz1dpuyM6QE

[spooky3]

51. he is a former employee and PSU had some control over his actions

As a retiree, he had access to many PSU resources, which mgt. could have taken away from him, and they had their own police force that presumably could investigate criminal behavior on campus.

According to the law stated in the grand jury report (as I, a non-lawyer, understand it), McQueary's responsibility was to report it to an authority within PSU, but that the people to whom he reported it DID have the responsibility to alert police.

He did claim today he reported it to campus police.

[cleanhippie]

38. I respect your opinion, but that is total bullshit.

There is no excuse, none whatsoever, for McQueary to not have reported this to the authorities immediately. None.

[riderinthestorm]

43. McQueary himself says he did report it. But the chief of police is now indicted for perjury

Do you think there is a chance that any reporting on Sandusky went into the round file?

[cleanhippie]

46. I had not heard that. If that is the case...

then when NOTHING happened to Sandusky, he should have called some different police.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Sandusky was investigated by a couple different agencies IIRC, and never charged.

Exactly who else do you think he should have gone to? He went to the police, Sandusky's best friend Joe Paterno and the head of the Penn State football organization, even the DA investigating it was "disappeared". I'd like to know exactly who else you think he could have gone to?

Clearly there is a culture of sports corruption in Happy Valley that's enormous. Even the judge who gave Sandusky bail appears to be connected to the Second Mile foundation and gave him a ridiculously lenient bail sentence.

[uponit7771]

26. +1

[ecstatic]

29. Agreed. Prosecutors still don't know the identity of the victim...

at the bare minimum, McQueary should have asked the boy's name and taken the boy home himself.

Edited for clarity.

[global1]

30. Did I Hear Right In The Costas Interview He Spoke With The Lawyer And He Said.....

that they located the boy that was in the shower with Sandusky when McQueary saw them and the boy backed up Sandusky's account of the incident. Was I hearing things or did that happen? I think even Costas was stunned and looked puzzled.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Ruh roh

...

[spooky3]

53. I didn't hear that part, and I've heard bits and pieces on several MSNBC shows.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

39. Win.

[barbtries]

2. i just heard this this morning

from a co-worker. it is definitely not in the grand jury report. i'm skeptical.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. I'm skeptical too.

I can't find any confirmation of this. However, I hope it's cleared up if he did. I agree with another post which says he should have called the police. This would still make him look less bad. Not many other people appear to have stopped Sandusky at all.

[Poll_Blind]

3. "Hey! Knock that off! Take that out of his ass and go back to showering! Ok, gotta jet!"

If he did "make sure it stopped", there's some part of the narrative I've missed. But is that narrative in the grand jury findings at all?

If it's not in the grand jury findings, was it entered into evidence?

If not entered into evidence, why?

There's a big gap there unless I'm missing something.

PB

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. There's all kinds of stuff wrong with the Victim #2 narrative

Sandusky appears to be saying that he knows who Victim #2 is, since he acknowledged the episode. If so, he should immediately reveal that information to prosecutors, since they seem to have no idea who it is. At the very least, he will have told his defense attorney who Victim #2 is prior to the trial, unless they're holding him off as the surprise witness to impeach McQueary.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The Grand Jury presentment is adamant that they have no clue as to Vicim #2's identity, and they claim that nobody at PSU even tried to find out. But the Sandusky interview was also clear that Sandusky recalls the incident and seeks to explain it, so he should have a clear memory of who Victim #2 is. It's completely unclear to me how a years-long investigation fails to turn up this victim. They have records of all the Second Mile kids who were in the program at that time, for sure, and McQueary would presumably - especially with these new statements, which seem to put him at the scene for longer than preciously described - be able to pick the kid out from images, especially if they're narrowed by age range.

Some very odd stuff going on with this story.

[Poll_Blind]

14. I am not an expert on the case but as my fictitious quote pointed out, there are some...

...glaring inconsistencies with the implications of some of the statements.

PB

[riderinthestorm]

17. Curiouser and curiouser is right. Like you, I believe McQueary may be able to pick out the boy

from photos. The grand jury testimony has nothing about McQueary stepping in, stopping it, or taking the boy. Did the prosecutors really leave this part out (which would be so damaging to McQueary)? Is McQueary now perjuring himself in order to clear up his name? What if he really did step in but went after Sandusky, and the boy ran away in the scuffle? (I'd run away!)

And why isn't anyone muzzling McQueary???!! His testimony is crucial to the trial's success!

[beac]

37. Sandusky may have really stepped in it if he's claiming he knows who McQueary saw him with.

Prosecutors can certainly demand he reveal who it is and if Sandusky "takes the fifth" on giving it up, that's gonna look BAD.

As I was typing this, I wondered if Sandusky might try and pass off a different person as Victim #2-- one that he's bribed to back up his story? Sure hope McQueary can positively identify the kid, but it could be tough since almost 10 years have gone by. :mad:





edited for typo-- can't type worth a damn tonight!

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. If the kid comes in

McQueary IDs him, and he backs up Sandusky, the whole prosecution is going to have major problems.

[beac]

54. With that ONE count. Remember there are seven others in the indictment and 10 more victims

came forward this week.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. With whatever number of counts are tued to that incident

And certainly with the Curley and Schultz prosecutions.

But yes, the other cases look solid.

[joeybee12]

4. Could simply be his PR ploy now...

Let's face it...the Paterno/PSU side will probably go after McQueary hard...this is a pre-emptive strike...although I have to doubt it's true.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Here's what the Curley and Schultz defense will likely go with

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.

[joeybee12]

5. Could simply be his PR ploy now...

Let's face it...the Paterno/PSU side will probably go after McQueary hard...this is a pre-emptive strike...although I have to doubt it's true.

[Myrina]

7. Bzzzt, wrong answer.

Contradicts what you/the grand jury testimony said about you running home to tell your daddy but not actually confronting the perv and saving the kid.

So, Mr. McQueary - are you an enabler, a liar, or both? :shrug:

[melissaf]

52. Grand jury REPORT

not the grand jury TESTIMONY. The report was someone's summation of the testimony.

[madmom]

8. So if he stopped it, as he said, why did he leave the boy there? Did it ..

start again after he left, no one knows but the players. He is in CYA mode.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Bingo: Any reasonable, intentional, intervention would have involved removing the boy to safety.

I don't care if he had to drag a wet naked kid down the hallway with him, there's a second shoe that drops in a situation like that and while he allegedly "broke it up", I see no evidence of the natural "next move": To remove the boy from his attacker's custody.

PB

[riderinthestorm]

45. Uhm, or the boy ran away. I'd run away if the offender were suddenly interrupted

and I had a chance.

[Politicalboi]

9. So what happened to the boy

After that. Did he let the perv take the child with him? May as well did nothing if he did.

[Johonny]

13. McQueary is a key witness

and one wonders wtf he's doing talking on national TV. I imagine the prosecutor is not thrilled to see a witness on TV giving statements ever.

It's hard to imagine how Sandusky explains why McQueary would volunteer to destroy his good name and career unless he really saw Sandusky do this. The only way to hurt his story is to give away too many sound bites on TV. If the prosecutors are smart they'll tell McQueary if he wants to help clean up his image do the right thing and save his story for a possible trial. Helping put Sandusky in jail would do a lot more to restore his image than trying to play damage control on NBC.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Grand jury testimony will be revealed in discovery, at the latest

McQueary's statements by phone to the team will certainly come in. We don't know if or to what extent they contradict the grand jury testimony. If McQueary actually did stop the assault and somehow rescue the child, and that wasn't in the Grand Jury presentment, he has a legitimate gripe about the way the prosecutors wrote it up, because it has ruined him utterly, and perhaps irreparably.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. He obviously allowed Sandusky to leave with the child. He didn't stop it. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

20. How do you know that? It's not in the Grand Jury report.

Of course neither is what McQueary is saying now.

THAT's the curious part.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Simple deduction. They don't know who the kid is.

The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.
The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he
had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home.

Either
a) McQuary dropped the kid off somewhere that wasn't his home, without asking his name. (which is inconsistent with the grand jury report)
b) McQuary watched Sandusky leave, then left the kid in the locker room at 9:30 on a friday night, or watched him leave on foot.
c) McQuary stayed with the kid until some other stranger came to pick him up. (which is also inconsistent with the grand jury report)
d) Sandusky left with the kid.

Any plausible alternate explanation is inconsistent with an unknown identity of "victim 2"

[riderinthestorm]

24. It's all getting very weird. McQueary's statements are certainly going to fuel the speculation

It's possible the kid ran off himself (if!) McQueary really did step in and stop it.

No way to know yet...

[rocktivity]

18. It puts things in a different light for McQueary, but not a BETTER one

because he apparently made a "quick, tough decision" not to go directly to Paterno or the cops. Which the defense can use against him -- he could even be accused of using the situation to blackmail his way into a cushy life as Paterno insider.

P.S. What's the date of these e-mails?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[WI_DEM]

19. 'quick, tough decisions' what is so tough about stopping a pedophile and calling the cops?

[LynneSin]

21. He stopped it ONCE!!! But his silence allowed Sandusky to do it again

I could stop a drunk from driving a car but that won't prevent a drunk from getting behind the wheel again another time.

Sandusky didn't stop his pedophilia ways, just found new victims.

[Old and In the Way]

27. An investigation/discovery/trial will hopefully shed some light on this.

My son, a D3 football player, asked me what I would have expected him to do if he had happened on this situation. I told him - stop it and report it to the coach. Where I think McQueary's defense breaks down is that he didn't force a resolution that pushed for criminal charges. He may have even benefited from the event as he got hired as a fulltime coach shortly thereafter...a quid pro quo?

Ultimatelythough, I blame Paterno. McQueary went to him and he had the authority and the power position to force the school to go public and to make sure a criminal investigation would take place. He could have given the school the ultimatum...either you do it or I'll go public and report it to the local police. He chose not to and we now see the results. He failed the victim, the school, and the football program. Sucks to be him.

[taught_me_patience]

28. McQueary is trying to save his career (or life). n/t

[MerryBlooms]

31. Child services was contacted and then decided it wasn't an actionable incident -

heard that earlier today on the Stephanie Miller show.

So that begs the question, who put pressure on child services to overlook the initial report?

IMO, there is a whole store of shoes that haven't dropped yet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Child services was contacted on the 2002 incident?

Or the 1998 incident?

[MerryBlooms]

34. 1998 and then he retired in 1999, but retained access to Penn facilities. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Right. I know the story..I thought this was adding new info

since the mcquery incident is 2002.

[JVS]

44. That fits in well with the pattern of Sandusky being repeatedly investigated and never charged.

[spanone]

47. it doesn't sound like it stopped. there's 10 more victims coming forward

[melissaf]

49. What makes me uncomfortable

is that the grand jury report was apparently leaked by a Republican governor who may have had his own part in the cover-up. I've heard that Corbett has been on TV bashing McQueary, which you also really DON'T want to do in the interest of justice being served.

This whole thing is nauseating. Everyone's hands are dirty.