I can't quite decide which is worse - McQueary's obfuscation and sometimes obvious evasion - pretending he doesn't understand the question OR Rominger's bizarre seemingly purposeful ineptitude and lack of focus.
MIke McQueary is actually going to get a pretty hefty paycheck for his part in this - How can it be that this guy who messed this up in every conceivable fashion be believed and rewarded while good and decent accomplished men like Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Dr. Graham Spanier are damaged and defiled because of Mike's inability to deal with a situation and tell the consistent truth?
This exchange around page 284 is a case in point.
McQueary has made such a big deal out of his insistence he "stopped" whatever was happening yet in his grand jury account - being read by Rominger he says
"so I just didn't do anything to stop it".
I mean WOW - Here we have an admitted contradiction under oath and what does Rominger do? Instead of driving it home he then switches immediately to a different subject.
Mike McQueary comes off as a person who has told so many stories about those 2 or 3 slapping sounds, 1 or 2 second glances - and how he stopped IT - whatever this IT was he has been coached to enhance in his memory by prosecutors - he is simply not credible. The only thing worse is Rominger's amazing inability to make that more clear by way of his questioning.
SO WHICH IS IT MIKE - your Perjury hearing statement "I made certain IT was stopped" or your Grand Jury statement "I JUST DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT".
Seems to me you made up this - "I stopped it and viewed them face to face" story after you got all the flack in the media about failure to help a helpless child you say was being raped before your very eyes.
I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me.
Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way
But you told investigators and the Grand Jury that he walked out without ever coming face to face with Sandusky and the boy. Sandusky said he never saw McQueary that night.
You told Dr Dranov you saw the boy start to come out of the locker room - and an arm pulled him back in. But in his trial testimony he says that's not what he told Dranov.
Then there is the account by some that he told or emailed some players that he chased the naked boy out into the parking lot but could not catch him - "making certain that IT stopped".
You told the Perjury Hearing Judge that he saw no pain or distress on the boy's face -
We also have a report from one researcher who tried to recreate what Mike said with a video camera in that locker room and could not see any way his accounts are credible.
How can AG Kelly ever expect to go to trial with Curley & Schultz with Mike as a witness - but wait - She won't have to do that because she's not going to be AG in January.
What do the readers think?
Given everything we've learned so far this is the best condensed version of the McQ clusterfuck disaster that I can offer:
Taking Mike's first statements as the most accurate - coming from those who heard them. According to Dr. Dranov Mike would not say he SAW anything - he kept going back to what he had heard - which we know was 3 slapping sounds he thought were sexual.
According to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience: "A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it .
Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with:
According to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience: "A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it .
Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with:
"Joe I heard some sounds I though were of a sexual nature but when I glanced in the shower room I thought Jerry may have been fondling that boy".What has happened through a series of unfortunate events is this:
- 1) Mike did not do what he should have done and A) confirmed his suspicion OR B) convinced his father and doctor to involve the police
- 2) Mike failed to offer enough convincing statements to Tim or Gary to give them the idea this was anything different than another bear hug in a shower.
- 3) Mike then enhanced his story - perhaps at the urging of prosecutors - to the Grand Jury OR the Attorney General decided to misstate what Mike actually said.
- 4) The Attorney General in her zeal decided to publish his story as a definitive "He saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe Tim and Gary" And in order to silence Tim and Gary as impeaching witnesses in the Sandusky Trial charge them with Perjury.
- 5) John P Surma and the BoT decided to take that statement in the Presentment as unassailable fact and SURMA led the drive to fire Joe and Dr. Spanier giving the Media good reason to believe the Presentment must be fact since PSU's BoT use it unanimously to fire Joe Paterno - He must be guilty.
Locker Room Description
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI have defended Mike McQueary over and over, I still think he is a good guy being manipulated to say things, but after reading these trial transcripts for a 3rd time, I will offer this challenge to ANYONE:
I do not believe ANYONE can say with certainty, exactly what Mike McQueary saw that evening. Least of all MM.
I can't challenge that idea at all Jeffrey
DeleteSorry folks you are either pregnant or your not! I still question why McQueary got out of bed and decides to put his new shoes away at 9:30 at night, could there be more to all of this than we know? Was McQueary watching this area for some reason? From readings and JG report original questioning sounds like he was pretty good friends with Sandusky and family.
ReplyDeletewhy does the public seem to believe McQuery without reservation? Because the prosecution overstepped their grounds. The AG has two contradictory stories. McQuery says he told PSU people about Sandusky. PSU administrators say he never did. How do you make your guy more credible? You charge the two who contradict him with perjury.
ReplyDeleteMcQuery is/was the most important witness for the AG against Sandusky b/c he had no baggage & he was friends with Sandusky so he had no bias against him. Defense attys could be able to destroy the kids who were abused by Sandusky b/c they presumably had bad records, bad upbringing, bad families, looking for a payday, empotionally unstable, etc. But they couldnt do that with McQuery. He was friendly with Sandusky, played on his football team. he had no apparent ax to grind. He was the witness they needed.
He is the only guy without a bias that could testify for the AG. The other witness would have bee the janitor but the AG should have never gotten in his testimony. The janitors testimony should not have been in the presentment, nor should it have been intriduced at trial. It is inadmissible hearsay. And that may be cause for a new trial. But they had McQuery & he needed to beconsidered truthful.
Lets not forget that the AG Office, their investigators, and cops, can lie as much as they want to get you to tell the story they want to hear. This is the law. Cops can lie during interrogations but you cant even be mistaken. With that in mind, it would not surprise me that the AG might have threatened or hinted at prosecution for McQuery, his father & Dranov if Mike did not remember things more vividly. They surely told him that Sandusky had done this to numerous kids & Sandusky needs to go to jail. But if they made a threat to prosecute for failure to report a rape, or accomplice to hiding a rapist, he could have been easily turned into giving the AG what they wanted to hear.
Maybe we know this already, but I wonder whether McQuery was represented by counsel when he was first interrogated by police & whether he was represented by counsel when he went to the Grand Jury. Without competent defense counsel, these threats would seem even more persuasive to get him to embellish what he saw.
I say this b/c if the prosecutoin threatened McQuery with prosecution & his father & his family friend Dranov with prosecution unless he tells "the truth" as they see it, such a threat could have caused mcquery to embellish not only to save his skin from prosecution but to save others as well. Im sure he feels terrible for not doing anything to stop the rape, as evdienced by his email saying he stopped it - "you know me i would not let that continue" - when his GJ testimony says he didnt stop anything. By embellishing the story either at the behest of the AG or to make him feel better about himself despite his own failures, he told a story that would help jail Sandusky and to him that was maybe payback for his failure to do the right thing back in 2001.
The only problem developed when Curley & Schultze say McQuery never told them about a rape. How do you handle two people with impecable records to save your star witness. You charge them with perjury. By saying that the two people who contradict your star witness are liars, you essentially start the game with an edge. Alot of times, the defendants wont testify to say your witness is a liar & that prevents any contradiction of McQuery. Plan worked since Curley & Schultze didnt testify for the defense as to the credibility of McQuery.
Sorry for the long comment, but needed to get this off my chest and still cant understand the lack of support for Paterno (a guy who we know alot about with a history of doing the right thing) as opposed to the public support for McQuery (a guy we know nothing about that has been shown to have contradicted himself on prior occassions & had no balls to do the right thing when he had the chance).
Great comment Jim - and I totally agree.
DeleteIt is amazing how the media swallowed the MM Koolaide with the help of the AG and Governor - but also the Surma's and the BoT.
And it appears that Mike will collect a nice paycheck for his lackluster performance.
BTW for what it's worth, Linda Kelly is a Pitt grad.
DeleteWho hates PennState more than Syracuse and Pitt.
Agenda's run deep.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn Law School (Ivy League) you are taught in the first day of Con Law (4th amendment, search and seizure) that cops are notorious for lying.
DeleteAccording to Dr. Dranov Mike would not say he SAW anything - he kept going back to what he had heard - which we know was 3 slapping sounds he thought were sexual.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience.
"A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it .
Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with "Joe I heard some sounds I though were of a sexual nature but when I glanced in the shower room I thought Jerry may have been fondling that boy".
But what has happened through a series of unfortunate events is
1) Mike did not do what he should have done and A) confirmed his suspicion OR B) convinced his father and doctor to involve the police
2) Mike failed to offer enough convincing statement to Tim or Gary to give them the idea this was anything different than another bear hug in a shower.
3) Mike then enhanced his story - perhaps at the urging of prosecutors - to the Grand Jury
4) The Attorney General in her zeal decided to publish his story as a definitive "He saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe Tim and Gary
5) John P Surma and the BoT decided to take that statement in the Presentment as unassailable fact and decided to fire Joe and Dr. Spanier giving the Media good reason to believe the Presentment must be fact if even PSU's BoT is using it to fire Joe Paterno - He must be guilty.
This is as simply put as I can condense the McQueary disaster.
McQuery should be hypnotized to see if he can recover the truth. He has probably been having nightmares or reincarnations of this scene for not helping this poor boy for 9-10 years. He should not get a dime out of PSU for a whistleblower settlement, especially if he perjured himself.
ReplyDeleteAdding further credibility to your argument, MM even came up with his own definition of "fondling" under cross examination to explain how he could use the term when he already admitted under oath that he couldn't see physical contact because of the position of the two bodies:
ReplyDeleteQ Did you ever use the word fondling?
A I'm sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I'm sure I did use the word fondling, yes, ma'am.
Q Okay. Did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky's hands on the boy?
A No. I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking--
Q Okay .
A --his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on a boy's genitals, no, ma'am.
Q So you can't--how would you describe fondling? I'm sort of confused here.
A Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don't know if that's the exact definition, but that's what my definition is.