RSS
McQueary Query
New questions in the Penn State child abuse case. My print column is up.
Mostly, I've been focused on the behavior of Mike McQueary whose conduct, as described in the grand jury report, was terrible.
According to fresh news reports, he is claiming in an email that not only did he "stop" the assault on the kid, but he also talked to the police about the matter.
Questions:
Just what did he do to stop the assault other than witness it and get seen by Sandusky witnessing it? Did he say something? Did he shout, "What are you doing?" or "Hey, cut that out!" before leaving the scene to call his father? Is that his idea of "doing the right thing"?
When did he talk to the police about what he witnessed? Within five minutes, five hours, five days, five months or five years?
Why would the grand jury and the attorney general leave details out of their report about McQueary's behavior that would have put their star witness in a better light?
As for Jerry Sandusky and his now famous interview with Bob Costas, the man denied being a pedophile, denied ever touching a kid for sexual gratification or in sexual intent. He will be denying things for the rest of his life. If he expects to be found not guilty in a court of law, however, he will have to be more convincing than he was with Costas.
UPDATE: Sandusky's lawyer is claiming that the boy in the shower with Sandusky that night, is now grown up and will deny that any sexual activity took place, let alone, a rape.
Sandusky, the lawyer said, recalled providing the name of the boy Penn State officials who confronted Sandusky with the allegation of something inappropriate happening in the shower. If, as I have suspected all along, that McQueary didn't provide them with the graphic details of an alleged rape, maybe the reason was that he didn't actually see what he says he saw.
Certainly that would better explain why nobody, including McQueary, immediately called the police. There are three other possibilities.
1. The alleged victim is ashamed of having been victimized and doesn't want to admit it, even today.
2. McQueary saw a rape in progress but having failed to rescue the kid, sugarcoated what he saw when reporting it to Paterno and others.
3. There was a rape and McQueary reported the full details of what he saw to Paterno and the others, who covered it up. But of all the sexual activity and fondling alleged by the accusers in the grand jury report, only one rape is alleged, and that is the one allegedly seen by McQueary. So far, I don't think any other accuser has alleged being abused in such a forceful and painful way.
It seems to me that the reason the grand jury found McQueary so credible on this point is because saying what he saw and what he did and didn't do afterward, put him in such an unfavorable light. Why would he tell a lie that made him look so bad himself?
The more these guys talk, the more questions they raise.
Mostly, I've been focused on the behavior of Mike McQueary whose conduct, as described in the grand jury report, was terrible.
According to fresh news reports, he is claiming in an email that not only did he "stop" the assault on the kid, but he also talked to the police about the matter.
Questions:
Just what did he do to stop the assault other than witness it and get seen by Sandusky witnessing it? Did he say something? Did he shout, "What are you doing?" or "Hey, cut that out!" before leaving the scene to call his father? Is that his idea of "doing the right thing"?
When did he talk to the police about what he witnessed? Within five minutes, five hours, five days, five months or five years?
Why would the grand jury and the attorney general leave details out of their report about McQueary's behavior that would have put their star witness in a better light?
As for Jerry Sandusky and his now famous interview with Bob Costas, the man denied being a pedophile, denied ever touching a kid for sexual gratification or in sexual intent. He will be denying things for the rest of his life. If he expects to be found not guilty in a court of law, however, he will have to be more convincing than he was with Costas.
UPDATE: Sandusky's lawyer is claiming that the boy in the shower with Sandusky that night, is now grown up and will deny that any sexual activity took place, let alone, a rape.
Sandusky, the lawyer said, recalled providing the name of the boy Penn State officials who confronted Sandusky with the allegation of something inappropriate happening in the shower. If, as I have suspected all along, that McQueary didn't provide them with the graphic details of an alleged rape, maybe the reason was that he didn't actually see what he says he saw.
Certainly that would better explain why nobody, including McQueary, immediately called the police. There are three other possibilities.
1. The alleged victim is ashamed of having been victimized and doesn't want to admit it, even today.
2. McQueary saw a rape in progress but having failed to rescue the kid, sugarcoated what he saw when reporting it to Paterno and others.
3. There was a rape and McQueary reported the full details of what he saw to Paterno and the others, who covered it up. But of all the sexual activity and fondling alleged by the accusers in the grand jury report, only one rape is alleged, and that is the one allegedly seen by McQueary. So far, I don't think any other accuser has alleged being abused in such a forceful and painful way.
It seems to me that the reason the grand jury found McQueary so credible on this point is because saying what he saw and what he did and didn't do afterward, put him in such an unfavorable light. Why would he tell a lie that made him look so bad himself?
The more these guys talk, the more questions they raise.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:11 AM
9 Comments:
Gil,
You forgot the most important question of all:
Since it seems like you are rethinking your charter membership in the media lynch mob, any regrets about promoting trial by public opinion rather than due process?
Jake,
If you're referring to my expressed opinion of McQueary the answer is no.
In the court of public opinion, and as someone who writes an opinion column, being willing to think through all the reported facts and all the possibilities amounts to "due process."
Given all the possibilities that I can think of, McQueary behaved terribly in all of them.
Now this is funny. Jake expecting a mea culpa from Gil!
Bob,
Spencerblog is not above a mea culpa. You recently pointed out a post that we thought was funny, but you didn't. After a meeting with our staff and much discussion, we decided that you were right. Down came the post.
Spencerblog can be wrong. But rarely. Very rarely.
Gil - I was just getting your back on that one. There are those who possibly would have tried to use that against you. You might also want to look at Danny's Hitler post. Also in bad taste.
BTW - I'm often wrong, but I'm never in doubt.
Jake - That kid you were defending may have just handed the defense a nice present. If the story he told the grand jury is different than the story he is now telling his friends, his credability as a witness is greatly compromised.
UPDATE - Heard on the news tonight that the Judge that let Sandusky walk without secured bail has been taken off the case. New questions arise. Is she a Republican? Did she recieve a sizable donation from Second Mile? Do I believe their conservative politics had anything to do with this? Not really. But Jake blamed McQueary's lack of action on the liberal academic environment. I just want Jake to know that when you start pointing fingers, it's a slippery slope.
Before I read the Grand Jury report, I like many was disappointed with Joe Paterno and Mike Mcqueary for not doing more. I now suspect they are the solution, not the problem.
Sometime late in 2010, an investigator must have stumbled into these two men (possibly the lone state police officer assigned to the case). The case gained serious credibility with Mike McQueary’s first hand accounts backed up by Joe Paterno. I want to hear their story, and not the Grand Jury’s version.
Besides the missing DA from Centre County, I am not seeing a law enforcement official with a commitment to pursue these matters (sexual assault on children). The Clinton County DA punted it to the Centre County DA who punted it to the state Attorney General who fumbled it for more than a year and a half.
Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary’s credibility forced law enforcement into action.
Now that being said, I still don’t understand the point of the Grand Jury. I sure hope the experts on crimes against children in the attorney general’s office don’t need the help of regular citizen’s to determine what is criminal behavior and prosecutable crimes. They should be the experts in this area and all the grand jury process did in this case is slow down getting a suspected pedophile off the streets.
It is time to take a hard look at how the professional law enforcement officials conducted themselves during this process and stop trying to discredit those who stepped forward and brought this problem to light. The review of enforcement handling should include some tough questions of why then Attorney General Tom Corbett sat on this concern for over a year and a half. If Joe Paterno can be fired for potentially not taking enough action (still need to hear JoePa’s side of the story), then impeaching a governor who did little as Attorney General should not be out of the question. Remember Attorney General Tom Corbett took an oath as a law enforcement official, and therefore a had much greater responsibility to act than JoePa.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home