Skip to comments.McQueary on alleged rape: 'I did stop it,' did have discussions with police
Posted on 11/15/2011 2:35:03 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Mike McQueary, the Penn State assistant football coach under fire for his reported lack of action in an alleged 2002 rape of a boy by Jerry Sandusky, said in an email to a former classmate that he stopped the assault in an athletic facility shower and discussed it with police.
In the email obtained by The Morning Call, McQueary wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" following the alleged incident between Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant coach, and a boy.
McQueary also wrote that he "is getting hammered for handling this the right way or what I thought at the time was right."
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
So who is lying, the Grand Jury or McQueary?
So at what point when he stills sees this monster walking free does he not question what is going on at the university? If he is telling the truth to his friend, then this problem really does run deep. Probably right up to political offices.
I’ve got a pole for you POS.
Poor Mikey. Where's the sympathy for the kids who were, "getting nailed"?
Tell it the DA... If you can find him!
The grand jury adresses what was seen. It does not address whether it was stopped or not.
Assumptions were made.
The old saw about assume.
So...he went into that showe and made Sandusky stop? He took the boy to safety? Like to the police?
He talked with the police?
If he did those things, then he did what was right.
But he allegeldly says in the email...””I did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room.”
That, BTW, was not in the grand jury testimony. Here is the way that reads:
According to the grand jury report, the graduate assistant said he saw a boy, whose age he estimated at 10 years old, “being subjected to anal intercourse” by a naked Sandusky in a shower at the Penn State football building in March 2002. The graduate assistant left “immediately,” was “distraught” and called his father, according to the presentment. His father told him to leave the building and come to his home, according to the presentment.
According to the grand jury report, McQueary spoke with Head Coach Joe Paterno the day after the alleged incident and later met with athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, vice president for finance and business.
So, which is it?
It sounds like he is saying that he must have yelled at Sandusky and saw him stop.
That’s better than nothing, but if he then left the boy there...it was not enough, nnot by a long shot.
I do not care how “incredibly difficult” the decisions weere. Or how “fast” he had to make them. They should not have been difficult at all. if you see a 10 year old boy being raped by a full grown man, you stop it and you get the child away from danger.
He says also that he talked to police...apparently the campus police. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Why didn’t they do anything about this?
We already know that the football program basically turned a blind eye to it, as well as the admin. Did they get the campus police to do nothing?
This gets deeper and deeper.
That is not an assumption. That is fact as reported by the grand jury.
IOW...just like a parent barging in on their daughter or son having sex or getting too "intimate"...
Yeah. The interruption did "stop" the progression. But did he take custody of the kid? Or did he allow the assault to continue @ another location -- either that night or sometime else during the weekend and weeks and months and years to follow?
Well, if he did report it, and did discuss it with police I would seriously consider giving him a pass.
That would mean he did all that was within his power other than actually shooting the guy.
Aren’t we all pretty much in that same predicament with the ZERO now?
Wonder if anyone will link Sandusky to the DA’s disappearance.
Witnessing the press treatment of McQueery has made me distraught. I’d rush to his defense, but I need to check with my dad and coach first.
Post of the Day
The DA disappeared 5 years after declining to press charges. Why is there any connection?
Exactly...in other words, he saw it, they saw him and the action stopped. Then he left and called his Dad who told him to leave which he did...and then later talked to others.
He left the kid there to fend for himself and continue being abused by Sandusky.
I cannot comprehend this. He should have picked up the nearest thing resembling a baseball bat and gone in there and taken the child away from Sandusky and to a place of safety...like the police station and reported exactly what happened.
That is the only course that makes any sense.
Sandusky was naked in a shower and not “armed.” He was raping a little boy.
Disraught is understandable...but that should have turned immediately to determination to help. Instaed, it sounds like it turned to “flight.”
Gary Schulz was in charge of the campus police. His official title was SVP business and finance.
I think the Mr. McQueary may be stretchin the truth a bit but he might legally be truthful, for whatever that’s worth.
They just crossed the $100 mil threshold for THIS lawsuit.
Not to mention all the criminal charges that will result.
Campus police aren’t ‘real’ police. they keep everything ‘internal’.
This is real simple. What does he mean by “he stopped it”?
Did he walk up to Sandusky and pull him off the kid and then take the kid away from Sandusky when he saw the alleged rape? Did he call the police?
Someone is lying.
It all comes down to the school and the football program, if we cover it with dirt no one will notice
McQueery needs to be hauled before the Grand Jury and asked to recount the specifics in great detail.. If he did not physically stop the rape, he should be discharged from the university immediately. Somewhere there needs to be some justice. This guy cannot be allowed to go on as though he acted properly.
McQueary is the "graduate assistant" mentioned in the Grand Jury report. His testimony then is different from what he is now relating. He can assert anything he wants now, but if he insists on the current version, he can be brought back before the Grand Jury again and questioned as to which version is correct. Perjury before the Grand Jury is serious and he can be criminally indicted.
One of these little beauties, hopefully a Christmas present this year for old grand grandpa, would have come in very handy and would have been entirely appropriate in the situation described in the article.
I am sure Sandusky stopped when he saw McQuery, but the fact is that McQuery left without the boy.
He didn’t discuss it with anyone that night but his father, and didn’t leave with the boy.
According to him he made sure it stopped right then. We will see (maybe)
It sounds as if the cover-up is starting to unravel in Happy Homo Valley.
I’m just hoping that not everyone to a man isn’t a POS.
What specifically did you do, Mr. McQueary, that prevented Sandusky from getting his hands on this same kid or another the very next day?
where is the FBI and the state attorney general?....
This story won’t wash. The Grand Jury was specific and detailed in their report. McQueary now recognizes that he will be regarded as a coward for the rest of his life, making future employment in his chosen profession all but impossible. Therefore, he is changing his story...
But he doesn't say WHEN he talked to them. It could have been days or weeks later. Yeah, that's prompt reporting of a serious, violent felony.
As for stopping the rape, I doubt he did anything proactive beyond surprising Sandusky, causing him to end his crime. Leaving in horror does not equal helping the child in any way.
McQueary is padding the story. He's lying.
Probably the only reason the DA has not charged him is that he is an eye witness to one of the rapes. He will get immunity for his testimony. Getting his honor back is gonna require some clever, lawyer lying.
Maybe McQueary is intentionally muddying the waters to make it easier to get Sandusky to walk.
I’m not sure we’ve really heard the whole true story. We should all know better by now than to trust everything reported in the news. Grand Juries, too... are not the be-all and end-all of truth seeking. They’re an investigation tool, but they’re not in the fact-finding business. They exist merely to decide if there is enough suspicion to proceed, arrest, investigate and ~then~ go to trial. Witnesses aren’t cross examined by opposing counsel. An indictment is just a tool to hold somebody before real charges can be filed.
Maybe the original story about McQueary wasn’t the whole truth? It’s possible. I’m willing to give it a fresh hearing and see how things finally settle out. What’s wrong with that?
First, I agree with what you just said. But there is a slight possibility that McQueary is telling the truth, because the Grand Jury actually was not specific and left information to be inferred. Here's the specific quote from the presentment:
The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.
Now, I certainly inferred from that a total lack of any action on McQueary's part. But there is some possibility that he stopped the action, or the parties stopped on their own.
The grand jury probably has a deposition or transcript of McQueary’s testimony. He may have said it the wrong way or not read the deposition well.
Or McQueary may just be panicking because he’s seen how the public views a guy who flees such a situation before he rescues the boy so he’s changing his story now. If he’s acting to cover his ass again that’s just more aid to the Sandusky so McQueary can look good. He’s hurting the boys’ case, calling into question his own credibility.
Sandusky may walk on some nightmare legal trick, but will never erase the public grand jury testimony of several witnesses, including McQueary, who saw him rape several boys. Sandusky will remain pedophile scum for the rest of his life, regardless of what is said by anybody other than his unknown, evil, identical twin.
No, McQueary is trying to make his cowardly inaction seem reasonable & sufficient to the situation. It was not!
If true, this pushes the timeline of police/public knowledge much closer to the disappearance of Ray Gricar. (2005)
The Grand Jury stuff posted on the web is clearly not all of the testimony, just a report. So - not quite right to characterize it as a lie...(yet)
If not, why not? Don't ask, don't tell...?
Sorry but this case needs to go to court. Now if true, the police are the ones who let Sandusky off and not Penn State. There is so much information out that and questions that need answered. For example, McQueary went to the police, what was the result of the investigation? The Governor of Pennsylvania was the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and investigated this case. What was found? Why didn’t Sandusky get arrested at that time? Why is Penn States getting bashed if the police have been involved throughout this entire disgusting episode? There are some very unanswered questions. This definitely needs to go to court so these questions are answered.
He stopped it by sticking his fingers in his ears.
Back in July. For a buck.
Regarding “Did he stop it”
Its been reported that both Sandusky and The Victim saw McCleary..he knew he had been caught.
So - I have to think, the mere fact that they knew they had been caught would break it up.
I cant imagine that Sandusky just kept plugging away, even after he knew he had been caught red-handed.
Also - and I hate to broach this subject, but there has to be the remote possibility that the victim had been concentual...and not a forced rape. That does not diminish the evil, but might have left McQueary a bit confused about what he had witnessed.
Regardless - in either case, it would seem that there was no immediate concern for the kid.
A child, a minor below the age of consent, can NOT consent to sex. Period.