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 ...
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.