Questions mount about the account of the locker room sexual assault @ PSU: (case crumbling?)

It’s a case that should be all about Jerry Sandusky. But flip on the television, Google “Penn State” and you’re more likely to find a picture of a red-haired assistant coach who was mostly anonymous outside of Happy Valley before last week. Mike McQueary — what he knew, what he did, who he talked to — has become a major focus of the case of child abuse against Sandusky. McQueary’s role is important because he’s the key witness in all three criminal cases.

He’s an eyewitness to Sandusky’s alleged sexual assault of a boy in the football locker room showers in 2002. And the grand jury found his testimony to be more credible than that of two Penn State officials, who are now charged with perjury and failure to report what McQueary says he witnessed in 2002

But as the pressure of public opinion mounted against McQueary, he was forced to go on administrative leave. And McQueary began to write emails to his friends and former teammates. He said he did make sure the assault stopped, and said he talked to police and former Vice President Gary Schultz — now charged with not reporting the crime and with perjury — who was in charge of the police force at the time.

The Patriot-News viewed the handwritten witness statement that McQueary gave after he was found by agents with the state attorney general’s office in 2010. The Patriot-News verified it through a source close to the investigation. His statement is two pages long, and it makes no mention of McQueary making a statement to police. It says nothing about stopping the assault. It is very similar to the account summarized in the 23-page grand jury presentment. McQueary wrote that he hastily left the locker room after allegedly seeing a boy about 10 years old being sodomized by Sandusky. Sandusky and the boy saw him, he wrote, but he doesn’t think he would recognize the boy today.

Source: www.pennlive.com...

Well well well. I think the, then Grad Assistant-now coach, has come around..... to what though? Trying to save Paterno and the others? Save his own skin? I mean.... read the darn story.... The guy attended a Golf event hosted by Sandusky and the 2nd Mile charity about a YEAR AFTER the alleged assualt. WTF?

I tell you, this case was weak to begin with and it is even more so now. I bet you... just maybe.... Paterno will be vindicated. And the others.... But why anon72?

Well, the atty claims to have now interview the alleged victim from the locker room shower incident and it is reported that the-now young man-is saying IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. None of what the guy said he witnessed-happened.... so it is being reported.

A lot of jumping the guns in this case... from the Pennsylvania AG's Office, PSU, the Media and the public.

Always remember this.... A Grand Jury can indite a paper cup if they want to. The only thing they do is determine if they believe the witnesses and evidence presented to them at that time is trustworthy.

And, even more proof that this case is being tried in the media by or as to what the media preceives and/or makes up. Example:

Reports on additional Sandusky victims are wrong, police say
www.pennlive.com...

I could see victims of this type of crime denying it happened... many are ashamed and are afraid to speak out about it with people they trust..let alone being pushed into an international spotlight..as well as court proceedings..

Its another reason why this type of abuse continues , and is difficult to prosecute.

It certainly does seem as though McQueary is back peddling. I'm sure he's embarrassed that he ran out of the locker room like a kid scared of the monster under his bed after returning from getting a drink of water.

We need to remember that there are most likely many wealthy people involved here. It is strange that so many people could continue supporting Sandusky and willing to be around him after supposed knowledge of his "activities".

This is getting very complicated and stories do keep changing. I do wonder if the DA was murdered because of this case or the heroine case he was prosecuting. They may even be one in the same.

I wouldn't be surprised if McQueary and the victims have gotten threats from those who are pedophiles involved in the abuses. If they are allowing these people to scare them and change their stories, they should be more than ashamed of themselves.

Originally posted by anon72

Well, the atty claims to have now interview the alleged victim from the locker room shower incident and it is reported that the-now young man-is saying IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. None of what the guy said he witnessed-happened.... so it is being reported.

In which case, McQueary perjured himself. There is no record of him going to the university police OR the state police.

And why would he do such a thing? He's trying to save his own butt and to make himself look better. He's taking a lot of heat here in PA. He met the bare minimum legal obligation by reporting it to Paterno, but his moral judgment, which is what everyone is questioning, leaves a lot to be desired.

McQueary's dad and Sandusky were friends. McQueary grew up down the street from him. I wonder if maybe, just maybe, McQueary himself was a victim. It's possible, who knows. There have to be cases going back to the '60's, because pedophiles don't just out of the blue start molesting when they're in their 50's.

A lot of jumping the guns in this case... from the Pennsylvania AG's Office, PSU, the Media and the public.

Not so fast. This investigation went on for years. Did anyone on the Penn State staff come out and defend Sandusky? Nope. People knew. The question is, who knew what and when? People, especially children, know when something isn't quite right even if you never witness anything.

Always remember this.... A Grand Jury can indite a paper cup if they want to. The only thing they do is determine if they believe the witnesses and evidence presented to them at that time is trustworthy.

And that is what they did. As Corbett put it, it takes a long time to build an airtight case, especially against someone so respected and influential as Sandusky. SI quoted The Wire: When you aim for the king, you'd best not miss.

Oh, and Sandusky's lawyer himself is a slimeball who impregnated a 16 year old at the age of 49. He later married her, but really, who does that? That's statutory rape right there. The lawyer's wife (now estranged) nearly had a fit when she found out that her husband said he'd allow their children around Sandusky any day of the week. What an idiot. If someone is accused of sexually molesting young boys, a responsible parent does NOT allow their sons to be around that person!

A lot of lawyers think he allowed Sandusky to talk to Bob Costas for the sole purpose of laying the groundwork for a mistrial. All Sandusky did was incriminate himself--he couldn't have made people think worse of him if he tried.

And, even more proof that this case is being tried in the media by or as to what the media preceives and/or makes up. Example:

Reports on additional Sandusky victims are wrong, police say
www.pennlive.com...

Maybe. Maybe not. The media can get some of the details wrong and it still doesn't change the facts. Common sense says there are other victims out there who may be afraid to come forward. The media may not have been 100% right, but that doesn't take away from the very high probability that those victims are out there.

Sanduskiy's "Freudian" slip in this recent interview says it all for me. BTW, did anyone here see the interview...he sounds like an entitled pedophile to me.

Sandusky, 67, broke his silence in a telephone interview Monday night with NBC's Bob Costas and his oddly worded denials raised eyebrows.

At one point Costas asked the retired coach, charged with 40 counts of child sexual abuse, if he fits "the classic MO of many pedophiles" by gaining the trust of many young people but not abusing all of them.

"Well, you might think that. I don't know," Sandusky said, and then laughed, according to a transcript from the interview. "I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

abcnews.go.com...-rwc

Just speaking for myself if my butthole got raped i would'nt want this national spotlight on me. I would be telling everyone that it did'nt happen aswell.

reply to post by Destinyone
Listening to this on the msm makes me want to vomit.If he is indeed guilty of this why aren't they asking the hard questions,like who he associates with,because wolves hunt in packs so that means he is not the lone wolf.Pedophiles find their victims through others that are involved in child porn and abuse.If you ask me if the FBI is really serious about this case they will find more than just one person.And if not which is what I suspect,it will slowly fade away.

On a side note ,I was listening to xm radio last night and Randi Rhodes was talking about this case(first time listening to her)a caller called in to voice his opinion.Well he started off with mentioning the Bush's involvement in pedophelia and the exit music started it grew louder and louder until you couldn't hear the caller anymore.Well Ms.Rhodes was stunned(you could hear it in her voice)it sounded as though she swallowed her tongue and said "what is he talking about?" "I don't know what he's talking about"and went to commercial.I couldn't believe the reaction,so this whole thing has me thinking that this guy is being sacrificed by the corporate media,and by people in high places,for what reason?I don't know,there is something missing or wrong about the whole story...

I an not disputing Sandusky etc.

I am afraid though that the "witness" is lying or embellishing his claim. Which got many fired. Not saying they didn't deserve to be fired or whatever...

But, do it for the right and proper reasons. If this part of the case proves to be wrong or not confirmable.... Paterno got axed for the wrong started reason. And the University Priesident (who I really don't like).

I just want the Truth.... no matter how ugly... Just the truth though.

reply to post by anon72


Time to blow this case out into full disclosure! Every day its a new twist and a new lie uncovered. This is going to get very bad when you consider how long Sandusky was operating from the bowels of the Penn State locker room.

If he was so comfortable in that environment to rape out in the open, I can only imagine what the man did in his own home over the years.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by anon72

 

Time to blow this case out into full disclosure! Every day its a new twist and a new lie uncovered. This is going to get very bad when you consider how long Sandusky was operating from the bowels of the Penn State locker room.

If he was so comfortable in that environment to rape out in the open, I can only imagine what the man did in his own home over the years.

And that's another thing. Where has his wife been in all this? I don't believe for a minute that she didn't know anything. No one is that blind.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
In which case, McQueary perjured himself. There is no record of him going to the university police OR the state police.

But here's the thing about 'perjury'-- you have to be under oath to commit it. McQueary claimed that he went to the police within a personal email. He can say what he pleases in a personal email.

Originally posted by relpobre000

Originally posted by HappyBunny
In which case, McQueary perjured himself. There is no record of him going to the university police OR the state police.

But here's the thing about 'perjury'-- you have to be under oath to commit it. McQueary claimed that he went to the police within a personal email. He can say what he pleases in a personal email.

edit on 17-11-2011 by relpobre000 because: (no reason given)

But isn't that admissible in court? Either he lied to the grand jury or he lied in his email. And if the email is correct (doubtful), then he lied to the grand jury.

Personally I think he told the grand jury the truth. I'm not sure what his motive is in sending that email though, which isn't supported by anything like a police report.

reply to post by HappyBunny


No it's not admissible in court. You can't hold someone accountable for lying in an email to a friend. Perhaps he felt guilty for not going to the cops and simply lied to his friend to make him feel better.

Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

No it's not admissible in court. You can't hold someone accountable for lying in an email to a friend. Perhaps he felt guilty for not going to the cops and simply lied to his friend to make him feel better.

That's what I think, too, but then why is Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas admissible?

reply to post by HappyBunny


I would have to say that "Yes-it would be admissible". Doesn't mean it would be allowed to have any bearing on any testimony but....

Not to mention he said it with his atty's presence and approval.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Re the Costas interview...it tool about 16 seconds for a very drugged sounding Sandusky to reply to the Costas query 'are you sexually attracted to young boys?'. I think it is safe to say that anyone who is NOT would answere that question, with a powerful NO in about .01 seconds.

As to McQueery. I hope he is being watched very closely. I take his email to a friend as a cry for help. I do. His dad let him down; Sanduskys is a family friend (is he a victim as well?); his hero Paterno is gone (with his assistance); his beloved football team is in disgrace (and will probably get the NCAA Death Sentence). He is subject to ridicule and even death threats. Now he has openned himself up to a world of legal hurt. I fear his part of this story won't end well.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I would have to say that "Yes-it would be admissible". Doesn't mean it would be allowed to have any bearing on any testimony but....

Not to mention he said it with his atty's presence and approval.

Yeah, and you have to wonder what attorney in his right mind would allow something like that and why.

Originally posted by Glinda
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Re the Costas interview...it tool about 16 seconds for a very drugged sounding Sandusky to reply to the Costas query 'are you sexually attracted to young boys?'. I think it is safe to say that anyone who is NOT would answere that question, with a powerful NO in about .01 seconds.

As to McQueery. I hope he is being watched very closely. I take his email to a friend as a cry for help. I do. His dad let him down; Sanduskys is a family friend (is he a victim as well?); his hero Paterno is gone (with his assistance); his beloved football team is in disgrace (and will probably get the NCAA Death Sentence). He is subject to ridicule and even death threats. Now he has openned himself up to a world of legal hurt. I fear his part of this story won't end well.

Yes, he did sound really out of it. I thought maybe a prescription with cocktails on top of that. I have a relative strung out on pain killer meds, they sound like that over the phone too.

That long pause after being asked by the reporter if he was attracted to young boys...made my skin crawl. He had to think about it? WTF???

reply to post by Destinyone


I concur. "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

"Sexually attracted...... (pause)..... No, not sexually attracked to them, I love young people...."

I like how Costas ended the interview....

Detailing the allegations against Sandusky, Costas said "If all of these accusations are false, you are the unluckiest, most persecuted man that any of us has ever heard about." He continued, "Millions of Americans ... now regard you not only as a criminal ... but also as a monster."