<p>McQueary Seeks $4 Million From Penn State </p>
<p>[Scout.com:</a> McQueary Seeks $4 Million From Penn State](<a href=“Lions247 - Fight On State - Penn State Nittany Lions Football & Recruiting”>Lions247 - Fight On State - Penn State Nittany Lions Football & Recruiting) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmmmm… if you would have gone to the police (and NOT JoePa) when you first saw what had happened, then maybe you would be employable today. Sorry, but I’m not feeling any sympathy for him.</p>
<p>[Mike</a> McQueary files whistleblower, defamation lawsuit against Penn State | Latest news | CentreDaily.com](<a href=“http://www.centredaily.com/2012/10/02/3356683/mike-mcqueary-files-whistleblower.html]Mike”>http://www.centredaily.com/2012/10/02/3356683/mike-mcqueary-files-whistleblower.html)</p>
<p>The local paper’s story. You should feel something for McQueary, if for no other reason that like it or not, there is a valid point here. He is the only person who cooperated with the grand jury. He is the only person not charged with perjury (Spanier will be next, imho). If we allow the precedent to be that when you DO come forward, your career and livelihood and reputation are ruined despite the fact that you are neither the perpetrator nor the person in charge – if we allow that, how does that serve victims? How likely are potential reporters to take the chance that they might be wrong AND even if they aren’t, they will still be scorned as ineffective, miserable, pathetic people? If you think McQueary “deserves” to lose everything, what about the janitor? Should he be thrown out of the nursing home? Because he didn’t do enough? Doesn’t he “deserve” that too? Realistically, nobody will take that bet. We know that already, there are bazillions of examples. Misguided vengeance or holier-than-thou attitude won’t move victim advocacy forward, it just won’t.</p>
<p>I see your point greenbutton, this awful situation is not black and whit…it would seem McQueary actually was given the coaching position, after he reported the shower incident, so he wasn’t exactly retaliated against for reporting. Fast forward to the grand jury and he was placed on leave with pay, again a fairly typical situation. otoh, I don’t understand how/why PSU is paying for Curley, Schultz and Spanier’s legal fees but not McQueary’s. That seems wrong to me. Frankly I don’t think they should pay for any of their legal fees, but that’s just me. I still want to see Spanier with consequences, legal, employment and financial. Once he agreed to not report Sandusky they all colluded to cover up.</p>
<p>I actually have a lot of sympathy for McQueary. Had he not stepped up and cooperated with investigators, Sandusky never would have been brought to justice and Curley and Schultz would not be under indictment. Had he not reported what he saw to JoePa, Sandusky’s crimes would never even have been a topic of discussion within the Penn State hierarchy. A lot of Penn State football fans hate him for that, and want to make him the villain. He is not the villain in this case. He is the only thing that kept this whole sordid situation from being swept under the rug.</p>
<p>Could he have done more? Sure. With hindsight, perhaps he should have known that the University’s police operation headed by Schultz was corrupt and could not be trusted to do an honest, impartial investigation, and so he should have gone to authorities outside the University. Perhaps he was naive in trusting that by going to JoePa, he was doing all that needed to be done; that’s what JoePa, his boss and mentor, told him, and JoePa was a demigod in his world, as in the world of most people in the Penn State football cult. Perhaps he should have stood up to that. Perhaps, in retrospect, we can jump on a confused and vulnerable 26-year-old graduate assistant and say he should have leapt to the physical defense of a child being raped in a shower by someone he had always been taught was an important, powerful, and respected member of the Penn State football family, upon which he was totally dependent at that point. It’s easy to make those moral judgments in retrospect. And yet he didn’t just let it go unreported; he pushed it up the chain of command.</p>
<p>If it were not for Mike McQueary, Jerry Sandusky would still be out there, doing his predatory thing. And for this, McQueary gets no thanks from Penn State, but instead gets fired. And for this, her gets vilified by many members of the public who should be grateful he had the b**ls to stand up to that much power and blow the whistle.</p>
<p>If it wasn’t for McQueary, we wouldn’t know JoePa for the moral coward he was, and the fact that he thought going to JoePa was enough indicates the damage done by the cult of the old man. </p>
<p>He’s no hero, but he’s a giant compared with the rest of them, and the Board of Trustees.</p>
<p>McQueary is the only person in the story who acted in a way contrary to his own interests.</p>
<p>
Isn’t this also potentially true of Paterno? Paterno had greater power but less direct knowledge, McQueary had less power but the ONLY direct knowledge. I cannot see any circumstance that damns Paterno but absolves McQueary.</p>
<p>
There were other witnesses, and a massive investigation which did not start with MCQueary - if he had not been subpoenaed he would have never come forward. If McQueary was so important to bringing down Paterno, and if Paterno had so much power, shutting him up should have been trivial.</p>
<p>
I knew him when I was a kid, and if this statement is true it would be the first such instance of which I have ever heard. He did not stop Sandusky when it happened, he did not tell the police (instead going to his father, then Paterno, THEN the university police) and did not follow up or take any actions despite being the only person known by name to ostensibly witness child abuse*. He stayed quiet about it for years, stepping forward only under subpoena a decade later. I think every action he has taken has been in his own best interests as he has seen it.</p>
<p>*: Not disputing AT ALL that Sandusky was a molester, just questioning the credibility of Mike’s actual testimony - his story is so inconsistent that I have trouble being certain what he saw.</p>
<p>Hmm, leaving a young boy being sexually attacked in a shower is behaving in a manner contrary to his own interests? Really?</p>
<p>Yes, to all points in post 8727</p>
<p>
Actually, a variety of people cooperated with the grand jury, and there have been some lawyers questioning whether or not McQueary should be charged with Perjury given the changes in his testimony between grand jury and trial.</p>
<p>McQueary is not a whistleblower - he did not charge to the authorities to report a cover-up and concealed crimes. A decade ago, he reported a crime to what we now know was effectively a corrupt head of police. He never followed up, never made attempts to tell people that he had witnessed a child molester who was not being prosecuted. He testified at a grand jury, at a time and place where he expressly needed to do so in order to save his own skin (if he had not done so, would Curley and Schultz have pinned the whole non-investigation on the shoddy/incomplete/noncredible/nonexistent report of McQueary?). This is not being a whistleblower, it is being a witness, specifically one out to save his own hide.</p>
<p>It is further complicated by the nature of coaching in college athletics. By convention and (I think) contract, his employment was not guaranteed in any way, shape, or form - his employment was always tied to Paterno having a job. When head coaches leave, the majority of the coaching will be immediately replaced, and given Paterno’s age he certainly could not have reasonably expected to have that job more than a couple of years anyway - heck, given Paterno’s health it is hard to imagine having more than a year, if that!</p>
<p>McQueary is just trying to find a way to cash in, knowing that he is simply not enough a good enough coach for any program out there to want him.</p>
<p>It would have been in McQueary’s best interests to say nothing to anybody about what he saw. He must have known that at the time. I don’t want to defend him too much, but going to Paterno with it was not in his own best interests.</p>
<p>
I disagree, I think he acted precisely in his own perceived best interests. He did not know if he had been spotted by anyone, and at some points claimed to have been seen by both the victim and Sandusky - with his very distinctive appearance, he could very easily be placed at the scene of a crime, and NOT reporting it at all could have been damning for him. And rather than go to the police, he went to his father (one of the only truly disturbing GO-PENN-STATE-AT-ALL-COSTS guys I have ever met) then his coach - I think he was trying to use the situation to improve his standing with Paterno, report the problem (which obviously could have hurt Paterno or the program) but keep it in-house, show how discrete he could be and how worthwhile it was to keep him around. Heck, Paterno was the one who sent him to the police at all! And when that investigation went nowhere, this guy who claimed to witness child rape did what, exactly? Nothing at all, not for a decade until he got the subpoena.</p>
<p>Maybe McQueary deserves more sympathy or maybe less, I don’t know, and I don’t profess to know every little details of why he did things every step of the ways but your willingness to vilify him and the reverse for Joe Paterno just leaves me a little perplexed and jaded. I guess a lot of Penn State people has to take side and draw line on every subject involved and once that line is drawn, you are either with us or you are against us.</p>
<p>
Have you conveniently forgotten that Paterno knew about Sandusky at least as far back as 1998? That it was Paterno who convinced Curley to NOT pursue any actions against Sandusky.
There were others (coaches and players) according to the Freeh report that knew and/or witnessed Sandusky in the PSU athletic facilities being inappropriate w/ little boys but stated they were too afraid of Paterno to come forward. The Freeh report purposely did not identify them by name because they didn’t want Paterno supporters going after them in the way they have gone after McQ. McQ was found when the DA investigators went on a PSU athletic blog asking for info/knowledge about Sandusky. McQ’s name was given and he cooperated fully. It wasn’t his story that changed but Dr Dranov’s.</p>
<p>The irony is that It wasn’t McQ who brought down Paterno but Paterno’s own emails.<br>
Please explain this statement. If you believe Sandusky is a molester than what do you think McQ said he saw/heard that you think is inaccurate or false or a lie?</p>
<p>
If true, this statement is more damming of Paterno than McQ. For what reason other than McQ’s abilities would Paterno give him a coaching position??
So your dislike of McQ goes waaay beyond Paterno and his failure to stop a child molester.</p>
<p>We now know that JoePa and the football program was paying for the former Professor Emeritus’ “trips” as early as 1979, and perhaps earlier. Intentionally or not, JoePa covered for him, and paid for his “activities” for a very long time. What JoePa did when McQ came to him is all of a piece.</p>
<p>
No, I have not. Have you conveniently forgotten that Sandusky was very thoroughly investigated by non-university police at that time, and exonerrated? Erroneously, yes, but exonerrated nonetheless - Paterno at that point had a statement from police and child welfare officials that (a) Sandusky behaved around kids in a way that made him look like a child molester but (b) he wasn’t. I can see Paterno seeing McQueary’s allegation as being yet another example of Sandusky being non-criminally creepy, but McQueary claims that he actually witnessed child rape - far more damning to me that he chose to stay on the sidelines.</p>
<p>
Please refresh my memory, I can recall the janitor, I cannot recall any others - I am more than happy to refer to the Freeh report, but since you seem to know where to look, please let me know where I can find all these witnesses who knew about child abuse and kept silent.</p>
<p>
“Paterno’s own emails” don’t exist - he is only mentioned in other people’s emails, and sometimes only by inference.</p>
<p>
First of all, while Sandusky was a molester, he did not molest every child he was with - this is typical for molesters, helps to keep them out of jail. The kid in the showers may be a red herring, one of the kids Sandusky used to show that he could be inappropriate without being criminal - it seems as if this kid is still on good terms with him, and may have been cultivated as “proof” of his innocence.</p>
<p>Second, whatever McQueary saw he could still spin it to his advantage. He may have downplayed it at some points when he thought it would help him, and may have embellished it at other times for the same reason. I read the grand jury presentment, and read what was published about the testimony he gave, and I agree with those who say that the testimony of that trio - Mike, his father, and Dranov - are ALL strangely inconsistent. Whatever Sandusky did to that kid in the showers, I think McQueary is such a BAD witness that it is hard to really know.</p>
<p>
You misunderstand - McQueary was a good fit for Paterno! He had was familiar with and supportive of Paterno’s somewhat outdated methods and practices, and he was part of the “family” - Paterno liked people sticking around, liked people who came up through the PSU football program (NOT one of Paterno’s strengths, just a fact). McQueary could be a solid coach in Paterno’s systems without having many of the strengths or characteristics more modern coaches would be looking for.</p>
<p>
Sure it does. Call me a character witness - I cannot speak as a direct witness to the events in question, but I can say that McQueary has a long history of ******baggery and self-interest at the expense of others. I don’t see why it is irrelevant, especially when similar such opinions are widely used to condemn Paterno.</p>
<p>
I am willing to villify McQueary simply because I knew him and have every reason to suspect that his long history of reprehensible behavior has continued. I am unwilling to villify because I never met Paterno, never attended a game, and never saw anything to suggest a history of reprehensible behavior - and based on the limited evidence available, without a history of past offenses I am not willing to condemn him. Might he be fully as guilty as mini suggests? Sure! But I have not seen any real level of proof other than Freeh’s “best guess”, an opinion that I think is both faulty and slanted and, as the report itself admits, really just an opinion based on poor evidence. I am really looking forward to the trials of Curley and Schultz simply so that better evidence can be revealed!</p>
<p>
Very true… but I have seen the exact same thing on the other side as well, people who are willing to condemn anything and everything associated with PSU based on this issue. I also think that many people outside the Penn State community see this as a simple and monolithic issue, while many people inside the community see it as complex. Many of us are condemned for fighting what we think should be a good fight, simply because in so doing we oppose some of the “simple” parts of the situation.</p>
<p>As an example, many Penn Staters (including myself) want to see Erickson and the Board of Trustees removed. Erickson appears in the Freeh report as much or more than Paterno because he was involved at many levels of the cover-up. Likewise, the BoT was responsible for oversight of many of these individuals (as shown by their ability to fire Paterno and Spanier), but willfully neglected that oversight and then bungled the response. And given that we think these people are some combination of incompetent and implicated, why should we accept their negotiations on “our” behalf? When they give every indication of putting their own interests first?</p>
<p>Please understand that while there are people on both sides with a “you are either with us or you are against us” mentality, there are other people who think that there are places in the middle, and are here to discuss and debate in the hope of finding and sharing something a little closer to the truth.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is another way in which people on the inside and people on the outside view the situation very differently. To insiders (or at least to the loudest voices among them) the most egregious way in which the BoT “bungled the response” was by firing Paterno - something that some insiders are seeking to reverse posthumously.</p>
<p>By contrast, outsiders view firing Paterno as an absolute necessity. The first step of many needed to clean up the mess within the Penn State athletic department and school administration. To outsiders, leaving Paterno in place, in the face of this incredible scandal that was facilitated and covered-up by an out-of-control program that he led, is unthinkable to the point of being an absurdity.</p>
<p>
The 1998 investigation failed to lead to an indictment which Im sure you know is NOT the same as being exonerated.
What? The Police detective in charge of the investigation has publically gone on the record to say he disagreed w/ the DA in 1998. Neither the Police nor child welfare services would present such a statement. Paterno claimed he did not know about Sandusky until McQ told him about the shower incident in 2002. </p>
<p>I agree w/ ttparent McQs hands are not totally clean but not nearly as soiled as Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier all of whom had the authority and power to stop Sandusky.</p>
<p>
I am personally conflicted on this issue. I do feel that it was done about as poorly as it possibly could have been done - without respect and without consideration, based not on merit but to satisfy the calls for someone’s head. I do think that this reflects very poorly on the BoT and is a strong argument for their removal.</p>
<p>The question of whether or not he should have been removed (properly) then depends on the degree to which (a) he was involved in the coverup, (b) benefitted knowingly from the coverup, or (c) by his presence interfered with the investigation, the university, or the football program.</p>
<p>I do not think that either (a) or (b) were inferred to ANY degree until well after the season, not until the Freeh report came out. (c) was more or less the given reason for his removal, but he was treated as if it were (a). Given the firestorm that continued to erupt, I am not sure that his presence as a head coach would have made anything worse.</p>
<p>Cosmicfish, what would you have done if you had seen Sandusky in the shower with a child? Would you have gone directly to the police, or would you have reported him to your superior. Ideally McQ should have confronted Sandusky immediately, but almost nobody would have had the guts to do so. Instead he want home and tried to figure out what to do. He asked his father for advice - not unreasonable, given that he knew if he went directly to the police it would be on the front page, and make PSU look bad. He was loyal to PSU, and reported to Paterno, in the hope that Paterno would take the next step and see that Sandusky stopped. </p>
<p>Yes, going to Paterno instead of the police was in his own best interest. But it was also in the best interest of PSU.</p>
<p>Also, from my understanding, Sandusky was not exonerated in the earlier case - he was simply never charged. There are many red flags about that earlier investigation. You’re willing to give Paterno a pass - but if Sandusky was doing inappropriate things with you boys, even if they were legal, he should have been told to stop. even if he was doing nothing of a sexual nature, he should not have been showering with the boys at all. Anyone who works with youth knows that even the appearance of inappropriate behavior is bad. As a Girl Scout leader, if I sleep in a tent with the girls, there has to be another female adult present, unrelated to me. In fact, I need that other adult present at all times, for my own legal protection, and for the protection of the girls.</p>
<p>While McQ may have been a disagreeable person, it appears that he was fired due to his testimony to the grand jury. If the BoT and anyone at PSU cares to show otherwise, that’s fine - they will have their day in court. His employment may have been at will, but his firing still looks suspect, when others have managed to keep their jobs. I’m sure Sandusky’s employment was at will too, yet he was not only allowed to “retire” quietly, but was paid to do so, and allowed to stick around.</p>