<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. He deserves to be vilified even if he thought he had done enough at the time. If he thought he did enough, he was wrong.</p>
<p>sk8rmom, the speculation I’ve heard about why McQueary wasn’t fired with the rest of them is that a) as the prosecution’s main witness (besides the victims, of course), he is being given more favored treatment, and b) he has whistle-blower protection; apparently low-level employees are considered to have blown the whistle if they report it to higher-ups. The higher-ups have a different obligation; they’re supposed to tell authorities.</p>
<p>LasMa, I agree. I have seen this scenario play out before, although much less publicly, and the whistleblower has been let go if they had any culpability at all…as soon as other “legitimate” reasons could be found of course! Although McQueary was a graduate assistant, there’s no question that his character and reputation is tarnished by not informing the real authorities and there is no benefit to the school or program in keeping him on staff. Nine years is a very long time to keep quiet, especially with the knowledge that the perpetrator continued to associate with children.</p>
<p>Tom–
It’s not for me to cut him slack or not cut him slack.</p>
<p>I think he did not do enough. He thinks he did not do enough. And, given time, and given the details he is going to be given, he is going to become more and more ashamed of what he did or did not do, as the case may be.</p>
<p>He will have to live with himself. It is right that he will live under this stigma. At the very least, he has to face the fact that he isn’t the man he thought he was. At worst, he is going to have to face the fact of what he really is.</p>
<p>We will see what the story brings. But, a man so distracted by a game that he cannot go out of his way to make sure the children are protected in his own building, is no man at all, in my book.</p>
<p>Lasma- would that include Paterno as whistle-blower since he reported it to the AD who was technically his boss.
pugmadkate- how far does that standard of having to be perfect go. Would it apply to a firemen who felt he searched enough only to find out that he did not? Would it apply to a teacher who looked into a child with bruises, reported it and the investigation uncovered nothing only later the child was beaten to death. What is the standard?
In those cases the fireman and teacher could both say I should have done more.</p>
<p>Scary thought, what if Sandusky panicked after being observed
(by McQueary), raping the boy and killed the child. Just a horrific possibility. No excuse for McQueary to walk out on that child.</p>
<p>“An investigation went down by DYFS…”</p>
<p>lje62, there was nothing more you could do. It was investigated. Unless there was further cause, there was nothing more that you could have done.</p>
<p>Perfect? Ensuring that a child rape is reported to the police is not being perfect, it’s the minimum in ethical behavior when doing the reporting requires no risk whatsoever by the person doing the reporting.</p>
<p>A fireman is in a race against time and death, a teacher who reported not to her school’s football coach but to Child Protective Services or the police has done his/her duty. </p>
<p>I’m not talking about perfection. I’m not even talking about taking personal risk or going above and beyond. I’m talking about doing the minimum required in a civilized society. He, so many people, failed to do the minimum. That is what is so disturbing, that is why this story is being met with so much anger. </p>
<p>Perfection? I’d settle for deeply flawed humans who simply did the absolute minimum that they’d want done if they’d been the child/it has been their own child.</p>
<p>Ohio-lje62, there was nothing more you could do. It was investigated. Unless there was further cause, there was nothing more that you could have done. </p>
<p>Now I am confused. I have asked several times and received no response what if Paterno asked Schultz and was told “it was investigated” do we also know if Paterno was aware of any incident after 2002? Do you have a different standard for lje62 than Paterno?</p>
<p>pug- Paterno says he was not told it was child rape and he did report to the police. Schultz was the police and he met with the GA…</p>
<p>tom, No different standard. lje62 was aware it was investigated. Paterno was not because there was no investigation of 2002 incident. He should have made it his business to follow up and make sure it was investigated.</p>
<p>Schultz wasn’t really the police. He was VP of finance or some such title and the U police fell under his authority. Not giving him a pass at all, but it’s not like he directly supervised the U police. He definitely should have reported though, nonetheless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This. Exactly.</p>
<p>There is nothing morally ambiguous in this, at all. Very simple. Not even difficult to do when you are Paterno. They will put you right through. “Hey, wanted to follow up. Has anybody found the little boy? What’s the status on the investigation into Sandusky.”</p>
<p>Heck, he could have had his secretary do it.</p>
<p>Is it possible that McQueary is being given ‘whistle-blower’ treatment (no confirmation of this, of course) because they are treating his testimony seriously, that IN FACT he did give every gory detail to Paterno, Curley and Schulz. And perhaps Mcqueary SR. can corroborate in some way?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t impressed with the results of the 1998 investigation which was conducted by the police…</p>
<p>Again I will ask what proof do you have at the present time he did not do that. He knew they met with the witness. He might have known they met with the college president. He may have been told they met with the Sandusky. You think but right now you do not know.</p>
<p>There is an article on the thread in the parents cafe that quotes the AD stating that the banning from campus of Sandusky was unenforceable. Many of you have used that factor of Sandusky on campus ass proof that Paterno was wrong.</p>
<p>^^^ That is totally possible.</p>
<p>“I wasn’t impressed with the results of the 1998 investigation which was conducted by the police…”</p>
<p>That’s a big mystery. There could have been a lack of evidence or a cover up, swept under the rug. Very mysterious circumstance. I’ve read it is not even clear to this day why it was dismissed. Not sure if that is true.</p>
<p>I think whistle blower or not McQuery will be in for a tough cross examination. The fact he left a 10 year old being raped will not make him a great witness.</p>
<p>Ohio to your post1498. I cut this from the newspaper article on the cafe thread</p>
<p>Gricar-the DA disappeared suddenly in 2005. He remained missing and was declared dead earlier this year. Tony Gricar, family spokesman, said his uncle had developed a “bitter taste” for the football program and Paterno.</p>
<p>“So, I wouldn’t imagine he’d give favorable treatment to anyone associated with the team for any reason,” he said.</p>
<p>McQueary had nothing to gain by lying about what he saw. In fact, what he witnessed would possibly be damaging to the program, which is why it was covered up. He is credible and the Grand Jury has already deemed him so.</p>
<p>We don’t know what caused that “bitter taste” and when it was developed, perhaps after 2002.</p>