<p>Good for McQueary, I was worried he might have been creating inconsistency to help out PSU, but it appears he is maintaining what he said. I can see a guy like him might have trouble using words like sodomy, anal sex, particularly communicating with Curley, Paterno. </p>
<p>The linguistic difference in wording in no way means he didn’t make it clear that he observed sexual abuse. It makes sense that he would have said severe sexual acts.</p>
<p>"In his testimony today, McQueary recounted the incident once more. </p>
<p>‘Jerry was having some type of intercourse with him, that’s what I believe I saw," he said. "I stepped back and didn’t want to see it anymore. I slammed the locker shut, and when I looked in, they had separated. I know they saw me, they both looked directly into my eyes, and neither said anything to me.’ "</p>
<p>Just wanted to redeem myself by providing this quote. Earlier in the thread I was accused of being “careless and vile” for interpreting a portion of the GJ report as Sundusky and the victim looked into McQueary’s eyes.</p>
<p>^^^^I always thought it was pretty clear from GJ report that McQueary maintained that he, S. and the boy made eye contact. How else could you interpret that he knew they had seen him?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like the defense lawyers in this case (and probably the S. lawyers will do the same) are trying to insinuate that without observing penetration, there is a lot of room for doubt that this was a sexual assault. </p>
<p>Come on. You hear slapping sounds in a shower, go to investigate, and see a young boy with his back to you, his hands up against the shower wall, with a NAKED 58 year old man behind him with his arms around the boy, and you have any doubts about what’s going on?! Seriously? I feel so bad for that kid. No one seems to care about him whatsoever. Not then, not now.</p>
<p>I thought Jon Stewart said it so well:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t see something like that and not have difficult time with it. And you don’t have several meetings with your superiors just to report that it was just horsing around. And if it was just horsing around, why would he embellish the story now so that he would lose the great job that he has, the institution that he has been with for most of his life in turmoil, and be in this god awful mess of a legal proceeding. And for what gain? He will see a lot tougher cross at the trial but he seems credible to me.</p>
<p>Basically, he has ruined his life for telling on S.
And I expect he know full well that he would in great difficulty for reporting it.
But he did.</p>
<p>Devil’s advocate q: what possible motive would he have for MAKING IT UP?
Did he have a beef with S? Wa he angry about something at PSU?</p>
<p>((((Was he a victim of S or a kid who pushed him away? or had noticed a lot of irregular behavior by S over the years and was sick of seeing it continue?))))</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what had me outraged from the beginning. “Delicate in nature?” WTH?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why I believe him. I think his actions in 2002 fell unbelievably short of what he should have done. But telling this story now does nothing positive for him. He has zero reason to lie about this, because it makes him seem so incredibly weak. His career will likely be ruined, he will be infamous for his inaction, he’s being reviled by people on every side of this issue. I can think of plenty of reasons for the defendants and S. to lie about this, but I see very little benefit to McQ for making all this up in 2002 or sticking to his story now.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4, I see where you are coming from but I think you are a little hard on McQ. I was thinking if I ever walk in on a friend that I know for a long time to be a decent person and see him sodomizing a kid, what would I do? I am not sure what I would do? It is hard to imagine that anyone would ever be in that situation. From afar, it is much easier for us to judge who Sandusky is and contemplate quick action against him in such situation, but for McQ, I imagine it is a lot different.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4~ I had the same reaction about this;</p>
<p>“I tried to use my best judgment,” he said. “I was sure the act was over.” He said he never tried to find the boy.</p>
<p>Even if the “act” was over, who could predict Sandusky’s next step, he could have kidnapped the child, or harmed him further because he was seen. </p>
<p>That said, I still have some respect for McQueary testimony today, and his not playing games to save PSU. I would imagine there was some attempt to influence his testimony given the power it has to impact so many.</p>
<p>^^^ttparent, ok, but I don’t judge whether an action is right or wrong, strong or weak by what I might or might not do. We can never know for sure what we might do in a given situation, so does that mean we should never speak out against wrong doing? Maybe if I rear ended someone, I might panic and run (I don’t think so, but everyone keeps saying you can never be sure); does that mean that no one else should call me out on my behavior since they don’t know for sure that THEY wouldn’t do the same?</p>
<p>He should have helped that boy, NO DOUBT. That kid needed an advocate, someone to get him to a hospital to check him for injuries, to collect and preserve evidence, and to give him a referral for counseling. At risk or no, he may have had parents who loved him who needed to know this so that they could help him. They weren’t given that chance by someone in a strong position to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with that. I actually feel a little sorry for him, as it seems he may end up paying the biggest price here, when he was actually the only one who tried to do anything about it. Although I find his actions that day (and for years afterward) to be woefully inadequate, it’s not like he turned his back on the situation and said nothing to no one.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s any question that adults in positions of authority let these kids down. I am relieved to hear McQueary testify in a way that is consistent with the GJ report, even though that really is a problem for Curley and Schultz. If nothing else, the dialogue about “what would we do” is really, really, heartening. Maybe if every adult puts themselves in that position NOW, and decides what is the right thing to do NOW, God forbid we find ourselves in a situation that requires action but good to have a better plan, a more proactive one. </p>
<p>I think it takes a lot to get up and reveal that you have fallen short, to sacrifice your career and reputation to make sure justice is – finally — served. That doesn’t excuse McQueary’s perceived inaction, but it is a powerful example of it’s never too late to do the right thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said.</p>
<p>No argument from me on what should have been done. All I am saying is that as unthinkable as it may be, great many people may not have done the right thing just the same as McQ when facing with such situation.</p>
<p>greenbutton~ ditto, very well said. He chose to now be a stand up man, and that is something he can be proud of today, despite his earlier inaction. This really does demonstrate how traumatic just witnessing this type of act can be, again, not excusing inaction, but the mind does go into denial and avoidance when confronted with what Sandusky actually did to these boys. It is so horrific.</p>
<p>According to today’s reports, McQ was emphatic in saying he told the PSU officials that something sexual and very wrong went on. So much for him being a damaged witness.</p>
<p>And thinking about Amendola’s comments about a reality check for anyone who believes McQ’s story – what a pitiful, last ditch attempt to discredit a witness. </p>
<p>I don’t know what’s going on with Dranov, but McQ’s father corroborated his story today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’d like to think I’d have the moral courage and basic human decency to report any rape or sexual abuse of a child to the police immediately, no matter who the perpetrator was. </p>
<p>But here’s where I fault JoePa and the way he ran that football program. According to local police and a former university official who clashed with JoePa over it, JoePa’s view was that the police were not to be notified even when his players violated the law in quite serious ways; those were to be treated as “internal matters.” The offenders were to be brought to JoePa’s house for a dressing down, and maybe there would be additional sanctions on the practice field or off of it. But when it came to rules infractions or even serious legal infractions by his players, JoePa was to be the police, prosecutor, judge, jury, and corrections officer. McQueary grew up in that system as a player, then as a graduate assistant. He knew JoePa’s rules: you don’t rat on another member of the Penn State football family to anyone outside the family, JoePa will take care of it. And notwithstanding his retirement from coaching, Sandusky was clearly still part of the Penn State football family, with keys to the athletic facilities and apparently even his own office there, and frequent contact with the players and coaching staff. He was treated like a “coach emeritus.” Under the rules of JoePa’s kingdom, McQueary did exactly the right thing—he reported Sandusky to The Man himself. And JoePa apparently promised to take care of it. McQueary had every reason to believe him, because that’s how things worked in JoePa’s Happy Valley.</p>
<p>It’s easy to fault McQueary in retrospect for not going straight to the police and for not looking after the boy, and there’s a lesson in that for everyone. I certainly don’t hold McQueary blameless. But I think JoePa is also morally culpable here, in a huge way. McQueary was one of his star pupils, a highly successful QB which made him a leader in JoePa’s program, but not quite good enough to make it in professional football, so after 2 years of bouncing around unsuccessfully trying to make the grade as a pro QB, he came back to Penn State in 2000. JoePa signed him on as a graduate assistant to learn the ropes of coaching and to serve as a role model for the student-athletes. In 2002 he was just 4 years out of college and in his second year as GA, low man on the totem pole but with aspirations to a coaching career and opportunities ahead of him to learn from the master. And suddenly he stumbles across a shocking scene: one of the most senior figures in the program, Coach Emeritus Sandusky, raping a boy in the shower. What made the situation “delicate” for McQueary was his own vulnerability: this could easily nip his coaching career in the bud if he didn’t handle it properly. What’s more, every violation of the law by a member of the Penn State football family was a “delicate” matter in JoePa’s world. No doubt McQueary stewed about it for a while before doing exactly what JoePa had taught him to do: he reported the matter to JoePa himself, who assured him that he had done the right thing in reporting it and that he would handle it. Which, when you put it in that context, sends the unmistakable message to someone in McQueary’s position that he is not to take this matter to outside authorities. </p>
<p>And JoePa quietly kicked the matter upstairs. I guess in the end I fault JoePa, and the AD, and ultimately Spanier far more than McQueary, who was a young vulnerable GA, doing exactly what he had been taught to do under JoePa’s tutelage.</p>
<p>Penn State fans were happy to hear McQueary say today that he did not tell details to Paterno.</p>
<p>^ but he told him that there was severe sexual acts</p>