Exclusive: Mike McQueary says he stopped attack on child and told PSU police of Sandusky abuse

Source: Patriot-News

In a new email from Mike McQueary, obtained by The Patriot-News, the Penn State assistant coach describes what he saw when he allegedly witnessed a boy being assaulted by Jerry Sandusky in 2002.

In an NBC interview Monday night, Sandusky said McQueary got it wrong when he testified to a grand jury about witnessing a sexual assault. Sandusky told Bob Costas it was only horsing around in the shower.

In the new email, McQueary writes that he made sure to stop the attack before leaving the locker room, telling his father and going to bed. The next day McQueary told Joe Paterno, according to testimony, and then explained what he'd seen to two Penn State officials.

In the email, McQueary states that he also told Penn State University police about what he saw that night.

Read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/email_mcqueary_did_talk_to_pol.html

If he left him with Sandusky, he only delayed the assault, he didn't stop it.

Sounds fabricated. . .

the victim with the rapist?

Also, why is it less believable that McQueary did the right thing? No one could understand how he could do the wrong thing. So what make it sound "fabricated" that he did what common sense dictates a person should do?

take him to a police station.

n/t

Fuck McQueary and Sandusky and their defenders.

Or what if the campus cops (led by Schulz, an administrator accused of perjury) covered the whole thing up? What do you say then?

they wouldn't be saying now that he's "unidentified." That creep didn't help the boy, he saved his job at the expense of his humanity and his soul.

Do you think that maybe there's been such a deep and wide coverup it involved police? Especially since we already know the GJ has found Schulze guilty?

I think the grand jury has only indicted Schulz. They didn't find him guilty. But it's certainly possible that the cover-up could have involved the police.

definitely.



(I need all the help I can get right now as tired as I am....)

Hope you get some sleep tonight. :-)

which you can read about in the Grand Jury Report I linked to below.

not only that, but there WAS a report filed by a high school, in accordance with the law, prior to this incident.

And what responsible adult lets a child wander alone after trauma?

and I were that child, I'd take that window of opportunity and bolt.

The University wanted to hush the whole thing up, and it looks like McQ may get hung out to dry so the top officials can cover their asses.

No big surprise there . . .

Along with the others that didn't report the crime back in 2002.

It was someone after the 2002 incident that set off the investigation into pedophila. Which puts those who kept silent to blame.

To everyone who's been calling for McQueary's head on a platter? To everyone who may have rushed to judgement without knowing all the facts? To everyone who based their attacks on a grand jury report leaked by a partisan governor who wanted to punish Penn State for pushing back on his spending cuts on education?

this email is a lie.

that is a grand jury REPORT. It is a summary of the grand jury TESTIMONY. As far as I know, we don't have access to the grand jury TESTIMONY. There may be key details from the testimony missing from the report.

See below. No need to post multiple messages that are exactly the same. Unless you're trying to shut me up, of course...

As long as McQueary saved the last kid then he's a hero.

Nuff said

The silence of McQueary and the 5 men who learned about what McQueary saw (and did) in that lockerroom is shameful. ONE OF THEM should have called the police and/or child protective services. Failure to do so meant that Sandusky could continue to rape and molest young boys - and he did!

He could have shot Sandusky dead with a handgun. That would have stopped the abuse.

That would be rather overstepping the legal boundaries though, would it not?

It doesn't sound like it in the grand jury report.

NOT a transcript of the testimony.

Certainly all the facts are not public. For the sake of the abused child, I really hope that McQueary stopped the rape, got the boy help and reported the incident to the police.

I think it is more likely that his email is a fabricated response to the extremely negative reaction he is getting than it is that the REPORT failed to mention any of those pieces of information. I hope I'm wrong. Nevertheless, a leaked email from McQueary -- while it could be completely true -- is certainly less credible that a leaked grand jury REPORT.

of the testimony. We have no direct access to the testimony. Whoever put together the report may have left out details that they didn't think were relevant to the discussion of the cover-up.

Maybe he/she wrote that the graduate assistant made eye contact, left immediately and then went to call his father, when really he/she should have written that the graduate assistant stopped the rape and went to call the police.

among all this bullshit

Six of one, eight dozen of the other, really...

:rofl:

Yeah, somebody left out that detail. When they said "He left immediately," they forgot the part before, yes?

McQueary says the raped stopped as soon as he entered the room. Is that relevant to the cover-up part of the investigation?

One of which being McQueary is fucking lying like a rug.

And maybe has been about exactly what he reported and to whom.

The more McQueary yaps (via email and otherwise), the more credible Curley and Schultz start to look.

I don't think he's lying, but if he is, Christ, I hope the whole case doesn't blow up. I don't even want to imagine that.

Indeed, the two incidents with unknown victims (the McQueary incident and the janitors incident) would seem to be the weakest of the bunch, but the numerous others seem like locks.

The case for cover up, and the cases against Curley and Schultz, on the other hand, are starting to look increasingly weak.

for YEARS after he witnessed the rape? Because he did.

No pity for McQueary. He was part of the cover-up.

have McQueary attending Second Mile functions and others where Sandusky was present.

ETA:

You seem to know for a fact that McQueary is part of the cover-up. Since we're getting parts of this story in dribs and drabs, I don't see how you can know for sure that McQueary is guilty. But that's just me.

and talked about it w/the AD and VP, that he did "all he could" but that doesn't make it so.

He should have gone directly to the police. If the police did nothing, he should have gone to CPS. If CPS did nothing, he should have gone to the local media. If the local media did nothing, he should have gone to "60 Minutes" or "Dateline" or the New York Times. If they did nothing, he should have stood on the doorstep of the Second Mile offices with a bullhorn and a sign that said "I SAW JERRY SANDUSKY RAPING A CHILD!"

I'm exaggerating on that last one, of course. But McQueary was VERY clear on what he saw in that shower, so he can't use the excuse the HE thought it was "horseplay", so why didn't he make sure Sandusky could never rape another child?

When it became clear that his higher ups were sweeping it under the rug, he should have spoken out and prevented that. Instead, he took a prestigious job with them and kept his mouth shut.

How you don't see that makes him PART of the cover up is beyond me.

McQueary's in seclusion right now because he's been getting death threats. So I'm guessing the bullhorn wouldn't have worked--he probably wouldn't have lived very long in that situation. He says he reported it to the police, he says he stopped the rape. He reported it to the university authorities, who, at the time, he didn't know would sweep everything under the rug. How many authorities can one person go to before they give up?

I can't justify why he took the damn job at PSU. It might have been a move by the PSU administration to make him culpable as well, but yeah, it was his decision.

trying expose the rape? And it's just tough luck for all the kids Sandusky raped after McQueary "gave up." And, once he "gave up" McQueary decided he might as well attend events featuring Sadusky and participate in his charity. "Oh well, I tried. Now back to promoting my career!" Pathetic.



Also, that "protective custody" thing turned out to be a "joke" McQueary made to his players and only McQueary's email (written AFTER his GJ testimony was revealed) makes a claim that he "talked to the police." If he did, why isn't that mentioned in the GJ report?

because he didn't devote his entire life to taking down Sandusky. Think what you want, but I would rather hear the full story than rushing to judgement yet again.

One last point: if he'd been killed in the process of trying to spread the word in 2002, he wouldn't have been around to testify to the grand jury, and we wouldn't have *any* witnesses to the cover-up. This case is just not as simple as it looks.

he wouldn't be around to testify ten years later. :crazy:

And how nice for him that he had a premiuim job with PSU to "devote his whole life to" while he waited for someone else to expose Sandusky.

I agreed with you on the whole job thing? I didn't think so. Try not to alienate those who might agree with you.

you somewhat agreed with me that McQueary's job w/PSU looks suspicious. As that was NOT the major focus of our diagreement, I wasn't focused on responding to it.

I don't think you're a "demon", but I cannot and will never understand why you think McQueary did enough to stop Sandusky.

that's what I think? Did you ask me directly if I think McQueary did enough? Or do you just assume that you know everything about total strangers on internet message boards?

But sure, I'll ask you directly: "Do you think Mike McQueary did enough to make sure that Jerry Sandusky, the man McQueary saw raping a ten-year-old in a shower, would never be able to rape another kid?"

based upon Schultz's testimony that AT THAT TIME he was aware of the child protective services investigation of Sandusky 2 years earlier that had, indeed, resulted in a detailed police report that was found by the police when this was investigated...

somehow could not find a second document that would have been PARTICULARLY DAMNING because it was the second such report in as many years.

But I also want to understand what happened. And if McQueary is being smeared to make his testimony less credible, or because Governor Corbett is bent on making himself look good when he also covered up allegations in 2009 so that the lovely Republicans of State College would vote for him for governor, then I want that to come out as well. McQueary didn't do the right thing, but he may also be small potatoes compared with the ugliness that's going on at the top of the food chain.

See this thread for the stuff on Corbett:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2312111

the cover-up than McQueary. McQueary was a direct witness to a crime. How is referencing his own Grand Jury testimony about that crime "smearing" him?

I don't understand why all these possible extenuating scenarios ("maybe he called the police/maybe he took the kid to the police/maybe he was one of Sandusky's victims") are being created out of whole cloth by you and other posters to minimize McQueary's behavior.

He may not hold as lofty a position as a governor or university president but he was part of the culture and cover up that allowed Sandusky to continue to abuse kids. He was quite content to see it swept under the rug. That's not "small potatoes."

but to understand. There's a lot of extenuating circumstances with McQueary. McQueary went to high school and played football with one of Sandusky's sons. So not only was Sandusky McQueary's coach, he was McQueary's friend's dad. Does that excuse what he did? No, but a lot of people personally involved with sexual abuse keep things quiet when they shouldn't. You say I'm making things up out of whole cloth, but do you know for a fact that he was "quite content" to see this hushed up?

I'm not saying there aren't holes in this story. And of course McQueary could be lying. But he could also be telling the truth. And no one seems to want to give him the benefit of the doubt because they'd rather pin all the culpability on him. To my mind, if Schulz and Curley conveniently "lost" McQueary's police report, that's pretty damn bad, too.

that they don't excuse what he did. You know you are directly contradicting yourself there, right?

Maybe you think all those things are "extenuating circumstances" (and thus an excuse) for what McQueary did. I do not.

As for him being "quite content", I base that on his willingness to take a great job at PSU, participate in charity events with Sandusky and build a career under the people who were also part of the cover up. Perhaps he was miserable and wracked with guilt, but that didn't impact his outward behavior, so maybe I should have said he was "quite content" to put aside whatever misgivings he felt and let Sandusky remain free and with ample access to new victims.

More whole-clothing from you on a "lost" police report.

Not trying to "pin all the culpability on him", just his fair share, which is AMPLE.

I give McQueary the "benefit" of his sworn Grand Jury testimony and no more at this point. The email he sent to friends (asking it be "off the record") holds no value for me at this point.

We have to agree to disagree, beac.

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

You hound me to ask me if I read the report, then when I answer, you say "it's all about me."

Besides that, see below. Yeah, McQueary is probably lying, or exaggerating to make himself look good. No winners here, only losers and victims.

And that's the last I'm going to say about that. You win. Pat yourself on the back for me.

but, for the record, I'm not the only one who noted your arguments were short on fact and long on "are you attacking me?/you're attacking me!" twists. I'm just the only one who said something about it publicly. so, I guess I'm not the only one who "wins" when you stop trying to make such arguments.

rather than trying to play victim, you might want to consider there are other arguments that have more merit than those you have tried to present.

are you shipping on him bigtime?!?!?!?

jesus christ on a cart. he didn't have to take the fucking job. he did. he was part of the organization, Penn State, that cared more about his own advancement than he did about children who continued to be raped by Sandusky.

More than that, I'm sure they were. A simple google search turns up no stories of McQueary supporting Second Mile.

Don't you think Sports Illustrated would have better research at their disposal than you?

ETA: Seems I'm a better "simple Google search"er than you:

He let the rapist live.

And I'm betting there are people searching for it right now.

the link so you can read it for yourself: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326259/pa-top-cop-mcqueary-didnt-report-abuse-to-us/

And here is the pertinent paragraph in case you don't choose to bother clicking the link:
Police: McQueary didn't report abuse to us

But a spokesperson for Penn State's campus police told CBS News that they never received a sex abuse report from McQueary. Separately, State College Police Chief Thomas R. King told CBS News that his department has no record of ever being contacted by McQueary regarding allged sex abuse.

based on a grand jury report, which (I believe) is not the equivalent of the transcript of the grand jury testimony. You could still say he's lying, but remember that he's the sole witness to the cover-up portion of the investigation, and he got two people indicted for perjury based on his testimony, which the grand jury believed over the administrators Curley and Schulz.

they found McQueary's testimony to be very reliable.

if they left out the part where he called the police, that would be a big issue because the findings in the case revolve around the reality that no one contacted the police.

My question is this: if he still can't admit that he walked away and did nothing, why do we believe he would have admitted that to Curley and Schultz in 2002? We believe he went into Curley's office and said "I saw this kid being raped" and Curley - even if he was immediately in the mode of covering it up - didn't say "And what did YOU do!?!" And McQueary says to Tim Curley, "Well, nothing." He still can't fucking say it!

The McQueary story stinks eight ways to Sunday. It may be an incompetent report writer for the presentment, to be sure. We will certainly know when the grand jury testimony becomes available in discovery.

Is the official he's referring to Schultz? Or someone more directly involved with the university PD, I wonder.

And I wonder who "police" in the first clause refers to and what those discussions entail.

Much more information to come out, I'm sure ...

which would seem to be the distinction, it certainly makes Schultz's testimony to the grand jury more credible, since Schultz told the grand jury that he thought child protective services was investigating. Where would he get that idea, other than from McQueary himself, if McQueary had, in fact, gone to the State College police in addition to informing Schultz as the head of the University Park police?

to look into the matter.

Schultz never once mentioned anyone else contacting the police.

that "he believed this same agency was investigating the 2002 report by the graduate assistant" (p. 9).

It is ambiguous, in the write-up, whether he believed this at the time of these meetings, or at the time of the testimony.

I never claimed that Schultz said anyone else had contacted the police, but if he believed at the time that the incident was being investigated by the Department of Public Welfare and Children and Youth Services, then it suggest he thought at the time that there had been independent reporting to these agencies.

however, reading the rest of the context, and the context of the event renders this reading the less likely.

the next page notes that NO ONE from the university ever called police, ever tried to follow up...

and that no one ever contacted the graduate student to ask him any questions.

if someone had contacted the police (which is different than child protective services) there would be a police report. if someone contacted child protective services, there would be a police report MOST ESPECIALLY because they had already investigated this same person only 2 years before.

this is what is impossible to believe. This was the second incidence in which someone, supposedly, contacted authorities about pedophilia on the part of Sandusky. There was a lengthy police report about the first investigation that came from a high school, not Penn State.

Schultz knew about the first investigation.

Therefore, he knew that, if McQueary had contacted them, or if they had, there would've been a BIG DEAL INVESTIGATION. Most coaches don't get accused of pedophilia twice in two years and skate for another 8.

This is the guy in charge of the police for the University and you're trying to claim he would not have been aware of the impact of such a moment. No, this was kept hidden. This was covered up. McQuery, in the part of the summary that details his actions, NEVER states he contacted police. If he had, again, with a prior investigation, this would have been extremely difficult to pretend there would not be some impact from the same.

So, if Schultz was saying that McQuery was the one who initiated the action, Schultz's later action makes no sense - as in, not contacting anyone himself. No, Schultz did not assume the graduate asst. had called police of CPS because, to do so, Schultz knew, would have ended Sandusky's career that day.

The only fly in the ointment is exactly what McQueary told Curley and Schultz. The Grand Jury obviously believed McQueary over Curley and Schultz, and - up until reading the account a few more time - I was right there with them. But this McQueary character doesn't do himself any favors on the credibility side with his continued insistences that are contrary to reported testimony (you've been excellent at squashing notions that McQueary's actions were more admirable than stated in the Presentment).

Just as a thought experiment, consider how all this unfolds if Curley and Schultz are, in fact, telling the truth about these meetings and McQueary is the one lying about what he told them. If he does sell the incident softly to Curley and Schultz as something maybe sexual that made him uncomfortable, there's no reason for Schultz to think it would explode as some huge deal. And it is reasonable that maybe CPS is looking into it and finds nothing disturbing.

McQueary's current behavior even tends to point in this direction: if he still can't admit now that he witnessed this rape and did essentially nothing, what makes us think that he admitted such a thing to Curley and Schultz nine years ago. What's more plausible: he walks into Tim Curley's office, tells him that he saw a kid getting raped, and did nothing, or he walks into Curley's office and spins the whole thing as some weird situation that made him uncomfortable? A week ago, I would have had one answer. Today, I'm not so sure.

So, then why does he ultimately tell the truth to the Grand Jury? because he doesn't know why he's been subpoenaed, and maybe they're about to hit him with a perjury charge with the victim's testimony. And once he owns up on that for fear of the victim's testimony, he has to pass the blame up the ladder.

I'm just going on the assumption that McQuery did tell Paterno about sexual conduct.

In either case, however, the admins look bad since they were aware of the 1998 report and, you know, if an adult male gets accused of "horseplay" that might be inappropriate, considering... I don't think those guys were that stupid.

maybe. but I doubt it.

though it would also raise questions about the presentment's claim that the incident was never reported to any officials. I guess I read that to mean law enforcement (and therefore in conflict with McQueary's email claim) but perhaps not.

It does bring up another question though about whatever "police" McQueary had "discussions" with--I would think that procedure (perhaps even law?) would call for the the police to bring the Children's Services (I forget the agency's precise name in PA) in on such a report.

Consistent with the pattern in this case so far, every trickle of information leads to more questions and possible lines of speculation.

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

On another note, "did have discussions" strikes me as an odd phrase to use in this context.

on this point: "On another note, 'did have discussions' strikes me as an odd phrase to use in this context."

And perceptive as usual on your other points, of course!

as in... Schultz was in charge of U. police so to meet with him, as Schultz noted, could now be seen by McQ as meeting with police.

however, a claim that McQ contacted anyone OUTSIDE of the Penn State admin would be hard to believe, again, considering the prior incident.

Thanks!

The good thing is that this will all come out in the wash with more information. We're obviously all speculating now based on very thin information.

Here's my thing: in addition to finding McQueary's supposed actions or lack thereof incomprehensible, I'm also not convinced that Time Curley and Gary Schultz walk into a grand jury and so obviously perjure themselves ("absolutely not," Curley said). That doesn't strike me as a comprehensible action for people as institutionally savvy as these two. I mean, we'd have to believe that Schultz knew enough to protect Spanier by remaining vague about what he told him, but not enough to protect himself. It doesn't scan. It's not how people trained in institutional dynamics operate. So, in addition to finding McQueary's account of what he saw and did simply unbelievable, I find the accounts of the meetings ambiguous at best. If the grand jury testimony and other information comes out and shows a different side, I'll be the first one here rallying to McQueary's side. But right now, the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

you two obviously know more about the law and it's nice to read what you have to say.

from this quote about the email:

McQueary wrote in the email that he stopped the rape and later “did have discussions with police and the official in charge of police.”

In the email dated Nov. 8 from McQueary’s Penn State account, the former Nittany Lions quarterback wrote: “you are the first person I have told this... and I don’t know you extremely well... and I have been told by officials to not say anything...

“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.

okay, well, first - as to others' claims here - he said he didn't physically stop the rape. he saw it; Sandusky and the child saw him. no doubt Sandusky moved away from the kid, like he jumped up and claimed he was wrestling with the kid in the back room at the high school.

McQueary is claiming he stopped something but the more likely reality is that Sandusky behaved as he had in the past. So McQ is trying to rehabilitate himself in the public eye with that claim, it seems to me.

His claim that he had discussions with both the police and the official in charge sound like attempts to make his actions sound more pro-active as well. He talked to Schultz.

As far as his reaction - yeah, I can understand the initial shock. This was a guy raised in this culture. It's like seeing a family member do something horrible and his loyalty to that family impacted his actions.

He sent this email as an attempt at damage control b/c of his fears that his career and reputation have been ruined when he was in a situation in which he was also being dominated by the coaching staff b/c he was a grad student. He was not on equal standing with the other guys in the room. I understand his actions, even if I don't like them.

Now he's trying to claim his actions were more heroic than they were.

At least that's my speculation.

which is here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/06/sports/ncaafootball/20111106-pennstate-document.html

pp 6 and 7. He said he called his father while he was in the bldg. His father told him to leave the bldg and come home. He waited until the next day to call Paterno.

He testified that the sounds he heard sounded like sexual activity. He saw an underage child and the child saw him. And he left the bldg. and never found out what happened to the child.

That's testimony under oath. not an email sent to a friend.

This is someone's summary of the grand jury TESTIMONY. As far as I'm aware, no one has leaked the transcript of the grand jury TESTIMONY.

are you really going to try to claim an email to a friend to try to cover for his failure to act has more weight than the summary of testimony in this case?

in what universe do you think that position would be considered the most reasonable?

could have been written by someone who didn't know that his/her every word would be picked apart. Not to bash civil servants, but they don't always write in the clearest, most straightforward way. Whoever was writing the report may not have thought that the details of how the rape was stopped were relevant to the issue of the cover-up. Also, this report possibly was leaked by Corbett's office, and Governor Corbett may have had his own part in the cover-up itself.

That, my friend, is the universe that I think that position would be considered most reasonable. The one that keeps an open mind.

Did you?

the report states clearly that NO ONE FROM THE UNIVERSITY CONTACTED THE POLICE

page 10.

I'm not trying to shut you up. I just find your defense repulsive and cannot help but ask you if you read the report when you are defending based upon assumptions that are clearly laid out in the report.

I'm taking this back. I'm not sinking to your level. You characterize my opinions as repulsive. I see no more reason to bother with you anymore. See ya.

and instead focus on yourself. this isn't about you.

the reality is that those who were on this grand jury KNEW how explosive their findings would be. If you want to believe that, with this knowledge, they just had someone do a half-assed job - well, okay, maybe. this was only going to be the report on what would historically be one of the biggest scandals in that part of the country with huge repercussions that everyone involved, including Paterno, was aware of before the recommendation to file charges.

however, in realityville, the one the grand jury was working in, whatever is most probable would be considered the most reasonable.

I don't say it's impossible that he called the police. The police are probably part of the whole cover up to protect creepy ole Joe in some way or another. However, again, since the COVER UP of this issue is the issue that finds such behavior so egregious that Curly and Schultz immediately resign... I sort of think if they could've pulled some hail mary someone called the police out of their ass they would have done so to save themselves.

Instead, they minimized what McQueary said. He spoke directly to them, as well. But Schultz used the very same words Sandusky did recently, when defending himself... horseplay. That they were not aware a crime had occurred. Do you think that McQueary would not have also informed them that he had called the police? Since, to do so, would have had immediate impact upon them?

Think about it a little instead of trying to grasp straws.

the 2002 incident (p. 9 of the presentment).

because, as I noted here just a moment ago, he was already aware of such a report on file from 1998. So, in 2002, if he had talked to them, they would have been all over this. The second such report of possible pedophilia in as many years.

No one at that U. filed a report, it would seem... which is the finding of the grand jury, as well.

The claim is that he testified that he thought an investigation of the matter was already in progress by CPS.

The writing is ambiguous on this point. The actual quotation is as follows:

"Schultz testified that he knew about an investigation of Sandusky that occurred in 1998, that the 'child protective services' had done, and he testified that he believed this same agency was investigating the 2002 report by the graduate assistant."

The verb tense leads one to question whether he testified about this knowledge at the time of the meetings, or at the time of the testimony.

he knew about it already. and the U. lawyer had to sign off on it.

I'm wondering whether he is stating that AT THE TIME, he thought there was a CPS investigation into the 2002 incident.

Of course he knew of the 1998 incident at the time. Nobody's disputing that.

which is why all the email stuff falls apart.

See my post on this above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5060996&mesg_id=5061345

It's important to remember that nothing ever came of the 1998 incident. For all Schultz knew, it was all a big misunderstanding. Maybe, in Schultz's mind, Jerry's just a weirdo the way he showers with the Second Mile kids, or maybe McQueary had just heard the scuttlebutt about the last investigation and got weirded out for no good reason. There are lots of ways this could have appeared to Schultz that wouldn't lead him to have our hindsight insights, or to expect a big to-do about the 2002 incident, especially if McQueary soft-sold it to him. It would certainly explain the campus/second mile ban, which seems to be more a matter of annoyance than prevention.

again, what seems most reasonable to me is that all of this was handled "between friends," to keep another friend from facing consequences for his actions. they kept it away from the police. if they didn't deem it imporant, they would not have contacted the foundation. McQ's claim must have seemed important enough to try to handle it "in house."

the reason this seems most reasonable to me is that I have seen other U. admins stand up for coaches who did horrible things to people (not child abuse, but throwing things at elderly ladies in a temper fit) and I've seen people continue to support and defend such a person.

to me, it comes down to not viewing the abuse itself as enough of a problem to worry about, in relation to the greater interest of the U.

I mean... let's say you're Schultz. Do you have kids? (I don't know if he does or not.) However, I cannot think of one male I know of who has kids who would not wonder about someone with two reports of possible inappropriate action with a child. If you were Schultz, with the information you had, would you have let your son go places alone with Sandusky? Would you have let your child shower with him or spend the night at his house?

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

and, again, the findings of the grand jury held that Curly and Schultz's testimony was far less reliable than McQueary's.

McQueary reported the incident. That was the right thing to do. However, it was also right, and moral, to call the police. But he didn't call the police b/c Sandusky was a big wig in the program. It was a failure on his part and, because of it, there are probably 1000s of kids who will not have to experience the same thing because others in McQueary's position will remember that what he did was not enough in the eyes of the citizens of this nation.

That's how society becomes more aware of the abuses of power - when they see how it warps people's moral compass.

Here's a link in which McQueary refuses to talk to a reporter:

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

I guess some prosecutor did tell him to shut up. Dumbass.

:grr:

Indeed, they meet the definition for law enforcement agency such that reporting to the University Park police (in conjunction with Children and Youth Services) would be sufficient to avoid the failure to report charge.

They are not a private security form working for Penn State.

It says so right there in the Grand Jury presentment.

And in the statutes.

"5. to exercise the same powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised under authority of law or ordinance by the police of the municipalities wherein the college or university is located, including, but not limited to, those powers conferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D (relating to municipal police jurisdiction)."

http://www.police.psu.edu/statestatutes/

Further:

"University Police officers are commissioned under the Administrative Code of 1929 and the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training law (Act 120 of 1974) and have the same authority as municipal police officers in the Commonwealth, being authorized to carry firearms and empowered to make arrests."

http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/2009-101504%20c%20PolicySafety_UnivPrk.pdf

cuz that's not what he told them.

that what McQueary is saying now conflicts with what he told the grand jury.

So either he's lying in the email or he lied to a grand jury.