Penn State Goings-On

[garbon]

We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view.  He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did. 

Got a link to his testimony?  You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view."  All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened.  They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.

Would a reason why be included in what happened?

[crazy canuck]

Really, there are only two possibilities for his continued silence - either he was afraid for himself, or he saw an opportunity for himself. Neither is admirable ...

Agreed

[crazy canuck]

We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view.  He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did. 

Got a link to his testimony?  You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view."  All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened.  They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

[Berkut]

Really, there are only two possibilities for his continued silence - either he was afraid for himself, or he saw an opportunity for himself. Neither is admirable ...

Agreed

There is another reason - he thought he had done what needed to be done, and those with the authority to act were acting.

Again, he should have gone to the police once it was clear that Penn State officials had NOT gone to the police. But at the same time, its not like he went along with a cover up (that we know of), he probably just thought that it was being handled. When someone did come and ask him to testify, he did so willingly, so far as a I know.

Here is a timeline of what went on with McQuery:

March 1, 2002: Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant and now the receivers coach and recruiting coordinator, saw a naked boy (Victim 2) with his hands against the wall in the shower area of the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus as Sandusky subjected him to anal sex, according to the grand jury report. McQueary told the grand jury that Sandusky and the boy both noticed him. McQueary went to his office and called his father, who told him to leave the building and come to his home.

— The next morning (Saturday), McQueary called Paterno and went to Paterno's house and reported to the coach what he had witnessed.

— The next day (Sunday), Paterno called athletic director Tim Curley to his home and reported that McQueary told him that he had seen Sandusky in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

— About a week and a half later, McQueary was called to a meeting with Curley and vice president of finance and business, Gary Schultz. He reported what he had seen and was told they would look into it. Paterno was not at that meeting.

— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile. Curley advised school president Graham Spanier of the information he'd received and the steps taken as a result. Spanier testified of his approval of the approach taken by Curley. The incident was not reported to the University Police or any other police agency.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-11/penn-state-scandal/story/penn-state-timeline-jerry-sandusky-joe-paterno-mike-mcqueary#ixzz1dKr1DRAf

The last bullet is the most damning - Curley telling him what the result was should have had McQuery in a perfect world saying "Hey, that is not good enough, someone needs to call the police".

But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.

[grumbler]

Very different between him and Paterno - he saw it, Paterno just heard from someone that something was going on.

And there is a huge difference in standing between some 20 year old grad assistant and Joe Fucking Paterno, and in maturity and authority as well. You cannot hold them to the same standard.

I don't think it was ok that McQueary reported what he saw to an authority and then let it rest there, but at the same time I don't think he deserves to be blasted and held to this kind of account either.

We also maybe need to consider what the staff is told about sex abuse charges.  A university is going to have different standards than a lower-level school, but I know that I am required by law to notify a certain school authority (or another, if the first isn't available) of any suspicions I have of child abuse, whether I then go to the police or not.  It is possible that McQueary wasn't sure whether or not to contact the police first, because of mandatory reporting requirements, and he went to JoPa to find out what he was supposed to do.  I cannot believe that Joe told him to go to the police and he refused.

It is also a lot harder for a 20-something GA to ask anyone "why haven't the police talked to me?" than it is for JoPa.  McQueary doesn't get a free pass on this, but clearly he deserves a more sympathetic eye from anyone who isn't already so narrow-minded and classless they are actually wishing death upon him.

[grumbler]

Would a reason why be included in what happened?  

  Not sure what question this is asking.  If we have access to his testimony, then we can see how he answered questions like "why didn't you follow up when time passed and no police interviewed you" or "why didn't you go to police."

[Berkut]

We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view.  He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did. 

Got a link to his testimony?  You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view."  All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened.  They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

We do not at all, actually.

McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?

So we don't really know.

Now, ideally McQueary should have done something, because even if they stopped immediately and fled, he should not have left the child in Sandusky's custody, but I can easily understand not reacting quickly and rationally at that moment, it's not like he has rehearsed how to react to that rather bizarre circumstance. In this I could easily see myself, for example, not reacting in the manner I would like to believe I would react.

[frunk]

Yeah, I agree that McQueary doesn't sound nearly as bad an actor as the rest of the people involved.  It does raise a question though.  Did the incident actually get reported to The Second Mile?  If so, why didn't they act on it?

[crazy canuck]

But I don't find him NOT doing that anything worthy of comparing him to Sandusky for, or even particularly terrible compared to almost everyone else involved. Lots of people did not go to the police who clearly should have - calling the one guy who actually did SOMETHING the villain is bizarre, to me.

First, no one has suggested anyone is comparable to what Sandusky did.

Second, the fact that lots (5 that we know) of people, all known to eachother, did not go to the police is one of the facts that leads one to think there might have been a consipiracy of silence.

Calling this guy a villain for something he did not do - step in and stop the rape or at the very least inform the police rather than call his father is not bizarre at all.

[crazy canuck]

We do not at all, actually.

McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?

So we don't really know.

So you are assuming something more happened in order to argue that the witness did not tell the Grand Jury everything about what he did or saw?

[grumbler]

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

This is a CrankyCanuck post at its very worst.  When I note that all we have are summaries, he claims that he knows exactly what McQueary saw and exactly what he says he did.  We know nothing of the sort.  We have summaries, not transcripts.  Unless CC has actual transcripts, and just repeats his claims that summaries are exact in order to avoid admitting he has transcripts, because CrankyCanuck is also ContraryCanuck.

[Malthus]

We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view.  He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did. 

Got a link to his testimony?  You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view."  All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened.  They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.

This is a Grumbler post at its very worst.  We know exactly what McQuery says he saw and exactly what McQuery says he did.  From those facts reasonable people can make judgments.  The key words there are "reasonable people".

We do not at all, actually.

McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?

So we don't really know.

Now, ideally McQueary should have done something, because even if they stopped immediately and fled, he should not have left the child in Sandusky's custody, but I can easily understand not reacting quickly and rationally at that moment, it's not like he has rehearsed how to react to that rather bizarre circumstance. In this I could easily see myself, for example, not reacting in the manner I would like to believe I would react.

It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.

The man was an eyewitness to a child's rape. Now, by all accounts, he gets to see the rapist wandering about campus doing his "charitable" work with boys, unhindered - the only restriction being he's not allowed to use the shower.

Granted, those above him are worse (in some ways taking the guy's shower privileges away is the worst of all worlds for them - it indicates they believed McQ, but chose to do this minimal thing), but he's not looking so good either.

[Rasputin]

We know exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view.  He testified to exactly what he saw and what he did. 

Got a link to his testimony?  You must, if you know " exactly what happened from McQuery's point of view."  All I have seen is summaries, which don't say exactly what happened nor do they say completely what happened.  They don't say, for instance, why McQueary didn't go to the police, or whether he was a mandatory reporter.

technically correct; what he have is the grand jury's report of what he testified to and their assesment of his credibility based upon their view of his testimony. what is both interesting and unusual is that the grand jury's assesment of the respective credibility of mcreary verses curley/schultz forms the basis of the perjury charges

ive never heard of perjury charges being prosecuted based upon two people testifying differently to a nine year old conversation absent objective evidence corroborating one version verses another

these are hard cases to prosecute because  failure of memory is enough to create reasonable doubt

the state must prove that curly and schultz knowingly gave false testimony; it would not be enough to merely show that their testimony materially differed than that of the more credible witness

[Scipio]

I still think Paterno should be charged.  The only reason the grand jury weaseled out of charging him is that they considered him an employee of Penn State, and not to have sufficient authority to report it to protective services.  That's at the top of page 12 of the report.

That's a whitewash, any way you slice it.  If Curley and Schultz deserve to be indicted, so does Paterno.

[Berkut]

We do not at all, actually.

McQueary said that both the boy and Sandusky noticed that he saw them. Did they stop? Did they flee? Seems unlikely that Sandusky continued banging the kid after giving McQuery a "Hey, hows it going Mike!?", right?

So we don't really know.

So you are assuming something more happened in order to argue that the witness did not tell the Grand Jury everything about what he did or saw?

I am assuming I don't know.

Which I think means I am not assuming anything at all.