The first comment I ever made on the Penn
State / Second Mile/ Sandusky revelations came the day of Linda
Kelly’s Press Conference on Nov. 4 2011. As an active participant on the
Tennessee Scout sports forums I injected a comment in a long thread of people
literally calling for McQueary’s head on a pike. The anger and hatred of
McQueary was visceral. “How could a big strong football coach in good shape
fail to step in and kick the crap out of an old man who was raping a 10 year
old boy”?
Well I could not wrap my head around it either so I felt
there must be something else going on and I knew the true nature of a Grand
Jury Presentment. Knowing that presentment was not an unassailable statement of
fact I tried to caution my fellow Volunteer fans to reserve judgment until all
the facts were in. That seemed to be a big mistake. People were angry. Angry at
Penn State
If Linda Kelly’s goal was to destroy Penn State
I actually felt sorry for Mike McQueary. I thought he must
have been an abused child – possibly abused by Jerry Sandusky. I tried to
imagine how shocked I might have been if I had seen what the Presentment claims he saw. But over time I
came to a much different conclusion concerning McQueary and his role in this
entire affair. There is no question that Mike McQueary was used by the Office
of the Attorney General to make The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal into the Penn
State Scandal. The only question I want to consider now is whether he was a
willing participant, a coerced participant, or and unwitting dupe.
Over time much thought and effort has been focused on attempting to understand what McQueary actually saw. Linda Kelly’s presentment stated this “most credible” witness “SAW a boy being subjected to anal rape” by Jerry Sandusky. McQueary has made it clear that this overstates his observation. This website was the first to obtain and publish pictures of the locker room where this took place.
What we do know about that night is that McQueary phoned
home and then left the Lasch building to meet with his father and family friend
Dr. Dranov that night. The following morning he had a 10 minute conversation
with Joe Paterno. And several days later he met with Tim Curley and Gary
Schultz to tell them what he had observed.
Even if we can accept that McQueary was so freaked out by
what he saw or thought he saw at the Lasch building that he could not react in
a manner to protect the child that Kelly says he observed being raped, can we accept
that condition made it impossible for him to convey the nature of the heinous
crime to his own father and long time family friend Dr. Dranov?
McQeary says the child's height in comparison to Sandusky placed his head at the pectoral muscles of Sandusky's chest.
Here is the point where McQueary's description of the end of his observation becomes important. McQueary says he faced the boy and Sandusky standing a couple of feet apart both observing him. He does not say the child showed any discomfort or surprise much less any fear, pain, embarrassment, or horror over whatever had happened. How is it possible that a small child of that size would not be in pain or greatly distressed if those slapping sounds were a big man driving himself into the child? And perhaps more importantly, how could a grown man desert a small child who was fearful or in pain to the person who was responsible for that situation?
McQeary says the child's height in comparison to Sandusky placed his head at the pectoral muscles of Sandusky's chest.Here is the point where McQueary's description of the end of his observation becomes important. McQueary says he faced the boy and Sandusky standing a couple of feet apart both observing him. He does not say the child showed any discomfort or surprise much less any fear, pain, embarrassment, or horror over whatever had happened. How is it possible that a small child of that size would not be in pain or greatly distressed if those slapping sounds were a big man driving himself into the child? And perhaps more importantly, how could a grown man desert a small child who was fearful or in pain to the person who was responsible for that situation?
McQueary now tells us he was abused as a child by way of
excusing his inability to act. But he cannot convince his own father with whom
he states he has a very close relationship or a family Doctor that Jerry
Sandusky is child rapist he observed in the act? What Doctor or father would
fail to pick up the phone and notify police in order to find out if the child
was safe? The only way I can imagine that happening is if McQueary did not tell
them what he evidently told the Grand Jury. And if he didn’t tell his father or
his Doctor friend how can we accept the idea that he told Joe Paterno in a 10
minute conversation the following morning or Tim Curley and Gary Schultz a few
days later?
This website has several posts with detailed excerpts from various testimonies of Mike McQueary and statements by Dr. Dranov:
The Rhythm of Reasonable Doubt
Mike McQueary - Reality Challenged?
Interactive Blogging - You Be The Jury
Did Mike McQueary Commit Perjury? Walt Uhler
2004/04 Messageboard Chat Gives Investigators More McQueary Questions
Everything you might need to know and the corroborating documentation is available in those links. There is no room to doubt that McQueary's story has changed materially every time he has told it and at this point the only cross-examination with room for tough questions was totally mishandled by the Amendola defense of Jerry Sandusky. Despite that feeble effort to impeach McQueary it is very important to emphasize that the Sandusky jury failed to convict Sandusky of the rape charge in the presentment that made this case all about Penn State, in the persons of Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.
This is the one and only key element of the scandal that ties the scandal to Penn State through Coach Paterno and the PSU administrators. Without this AG Kelly would be stuck with making this case about The Second Mile and the state agencies charged with protecting Pennsylvania’s children.
Whaever McQueary told Paterno, Curley and Schultz it wasn’t enough to convince Curley and Schultz that Sandusky was doing anything beyond horsing around or wrestling with one of “HIS” Second Mile kids after a workout. I know how creepy that must seem now but Sandusky had made a name for himself in Pennsylvania as a great benefactor to at risk kids. He was an almost saintly grandfather figure with several foster children who had devoted his life to helping kids through his very successful charity. Sandusky had been bringing kids to PSU for years conditioning everyone to believe his intentions were completely honorable. He was less questionable than a Catholic priest inoculated from suspicion by a lifetime of charitable work and a habit of bringing boys to work out with coaches and athletes as full participants in the “jock” experience of workouts and showers to their evident benefit and delight.
Curley and Schultz would have had a difficult time accepting that Sandusky was some kind of perverted monster even with some clear accusation by McQueary that he actually saw a rape in progress. It simply did not fit his well crafted image. Schultz and Curley both say that McQueary’s description of the event led them to think what Sandusky did was inappropriate horseplay. Paterno at 84 years of age trying to recall the 10 minute meeting first says he cannot recall McQueary’s specific words but on the stand he says that “fondling” or “something of a sexual nature” was conveyed prompting him to involve Tim Curley. I believe if I were in the shoes of either Paterno, Curley or Schultz I would simply find McQueary's story difficult to believe. If he actually believed he was witness to a sexual assault how could he have abandoned the child and left him with Sandusky that night?
The simplest explanation is to think McQueary thought he might have been present at a sexual assault but his indirect glances likely prompted him to think but not see and his 'ear witness' account seems to indicate a conclusion inspired from personal experience. McQueary states that he had heard “3 rhythmic slapping sounds” upon entering the locker room leading him to believe some sexual activity might be taking place. Why 3 slapping sounds would lead to that conclusion is hard to imagine. Why wouldn't anyone think "wet feet on a wet floor" or "wet palms on a wet wall or thigh"? Expecting to see a couple involved in sexual activity McQueary instead sees the head of a small boy and then a naked Sandusky. He never actually sees penetration or likely even contact. But he leaps to the conclusion of anal intercourse based on the sounds and his history.
His account does not lead his father or Dr. Dranov to the conclusion that he has observed anything worthy of involving the police. Dr. Dranov as a medical doctor is bound to do the right thing and protect the child. But McQueary refused to answer three times when asked “Did you observe a sexual assault?” Instead, McQueary would "come back to the sounds" of the 3 slaps according to Dranov.
I have no choice other than to believe he must have told Joe Paterno that he suspected Sandusky of “something of sexual nature” like “fondling” but that he could not be certain. And if he only said something like that to Paterno why would anyone think he was more explicit with Curley and Schultz. They would have to be skeptical of a man who said he saw a sexual assault in progress but did nothing to stop it. McQueary would likely be embarrassed by his lack of action and would be inclined to excuse this failure to act by expressing his uncertainty. Had he jumped to a conclusion based on 3 slapping sounds and the expectation of seeing adults engaged in sexual activity? There are several ways to imagine this conversation that do not involve any indication that Curley and Schultz were planning some cover up.
Faced with a report from McQueary that Sandusky was at the Lasch Building with a young boy at night in a shower was enough for Curley and Schultz to investigate the situation. But remember who Sandusky was in the minds of these people. Here was the founder of The Second Mile doing something he had done often. It was something that had to stop so Curley and Schultz tried to put a stop to it by denying Sandusky the right to ever bring children to the campus again that way. But Penn State was involved in the good work of supporting The Second Mile and helping PA children by providing facilities for Second Mile events. In their minds Sandusky the foster father and charity founder was in danger of destroying his own reputation by failing to see the danger of his own actions. If McQueary could conclude he might be involved in child molestation, anyone could misinterpret his good intentions. That’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach given Sandusky’s history and image.
McQueary can’t be certain of what he thinks he might have observed and Sandusky says it was simply horseplay. People would not fault a foster father for working out and showering with his son would they? They wouldn’t suspect a grandfather because he took his grandson to a workout and shower would they? And Sandusky was constantly involved with the children of The Second Mile and to all those outside the charity he must have been seen as a real benefactor for at risk kids. So was it really so obvious that what McQueary observed was some heinous sexual act? Was it even that obviously inappropriate? If the boy was legally in the care of the Sandusky's that day and night would it be inappropriate for his surrogate father/grandfather to let him come along to a workout and shower? Isn't it far more logical to assume that Paterno, Curley and Schultz found McQueary's lack of action and unconfirmed suspicion to fall far short of any criminal sexual molestation. The boy in question could easily have been a TSM kid in the care of the foster father and charity founder. They informed Jack Raykovitz, TSM's administrator believing this was an issue for TSM to control and resolve. Surely the organization that employed Sandusky and was responsible for the welfare of the TSM kids was the proper group to investigate and resolve any problem.
Victim 2 - the suspected victim that night told Sandusky’s attorney that he was not molested that night. He claims he heard the slammed locker door but never saw McQueary. The jury in Sandusky’s trial did not believe that McQueary observed a rape. They acquitted Sandusky on that one charge of the indictment. So why is the state still set on prosecuting Curley and Schultz – and now Graham Spanier – as part of some obstruction and failure to report a crime? The jury says there was no rape and the idea that a workout and shower are evidence of child endangerment is not that evident under these circumstances. If McQueary, his father, Dr. Dranov, and Raykovitz are not indictable for failure to report why would Spanier, Curly and Schultz be singled out for that honor? What is the purpose of this selective prosecution?
If you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz should be prosecuted and PSU blamed for Sanduky's actions in 2001 why do you think Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile are spared any blame? Why are John McQueary and Dr. Dranov not held responsible for failure to report? And why is Mike McQueary off the hook?
If you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz should be prosecuted and PSU blamed for Sanduky's actions in 2001 why do you think Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile are spared any blame? Why are John McQueary and Dr. Dranov not held responsible for failure to report? And why is Mike McQueary off the hook?
From every indication Mike McQueary comes from a very close loving family and is fully supported by his parents. He is a local football hero who quarterbacked the Nittany Lions prior to become a member of the coaching staff. He is at home with a supportive father and a family friend who is a Doctor. And we are to believe he could not convince them he saw something worth reporting to police or that he was concerned about the well being of a child who he left in Sandusky’s hands?
Maybe McQueary is a severely damaged man who suffered from some sexual abuse as a boy. He is evidently a gambling addict who bet on Penn State football games as a player. He certainly isn’t without some serious flaws. His testimony has been used to destroy his coach and benefactor whom he says he loved and revered. And it has been used to virtually destroy the reputation of his home town and alma mater. McQueary handed Linda Kelly and the Governor the ammunition they needed to destroy the reputations of Gram Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. These are all evidently admirable men who believed they were doing the right thing. Despite the absurd conclusions and twisted logic of the Freeh Fiction there is NO EVIDENCE that these PSU administrator colluded with Paterno to cover up evidence of a rapist and child molester.
I’m not sure how McQueary lives with himself. His wife evidently cannot live with him. He now sleeps in his boyhood bedroom at the home of his parents. He allowed Linda Kelly and the Grand Jury to misrepresent his testimony in the presentment without once protesting the language and he appears to be a willing participant in the prosecution of Penn State via the administrators Spanier Curley and Schultz. His testimony could put these men behind bars for 39 years. Is he really willing to see them in prison for the rest of their lives for failure to do what he should have done that night in 2001?
I have lost all sympathy for Mike McQueary. There are limited conclusions one can reach when putting this entire episode into perspective:
1) Mike McQueary failed to protect a 10 year old boy from a rapist if we believe Linda Kelly’s presentment
2) Mike McQueary could have called the police himself or he could have convinced his father and Dr Dranov to go to the police with him. But when Dr Dranov asked him 3 times “Did you witness a sexual assault”, McQueary would "come back to the sounds" of the 3 slaps according to Dranov. At the very least this left a 10 year old boy in the hands of his rapist/molester for the rest of the night.
3) Despite telling his father and Dr. Dranov he did not see a sexual assault he insists what he told Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz did not leave them any room to doubt he had observed a heinous sexual crime with a victim he did nothing to protect.
4) When he saw the Grand Jury Presentment and the quote attributed to him. “He (McQueary) saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky” and was obviously made aware of the impact of that statement on the coach he “loved” he couldn’t walk out his front door and tell the assembled press that the statement was not accurate. If he loved and revered Paterno this inaction was inexcusable.
5) Now he knows it is his testimony alone that puts Spanier Curley and Schultz in danger of being imprisoned for 39 years. Is McQueary really willing to see these men imprisoned for his failure to make it clear that he observed a rape? Is he actually willing to send them to prison to protect himself? Did he make a deal with prosecutors to avoid prosecution for failure to report or some gambling charge in exchange for testimony that might put these men in prison?
How can we excuse McQueary's behavior? He believed he observed a child being sexually assaulted and did nothing to protect that child. Instead he seeks to blame Tim Curley and Gary Schultz for failure to do what he alone should have done and at the same time he knows his failure to act that night and his testimony about what he says he told Joe Paterno and the PSU administrators has destroyed reputations and cost his alma mater millions. On top of that he seeks to gain 4 million dollars from his university. Are we to believe he is not only void of personal responsibility but due personal enrichment for this behavior? Can anyone rationally defend that behavior?
How can we excuse McQueary's behavior? He believed he observed a child being sexually assaulted and did nothing to protect that child. Instead he seeks to blame Tim Curley and Gary Schultz for failure to do what he alone should have done and at the same time he knows his failure to act that night and his testimony about what he says he told Joe Paterno and the PSU administrators has destroyed reputations and cost his alma mater millions. On top of that he seeks to gain 4 million dollars from his university. Are we to believe he is not only void of personal responsibility but due personal enrichment for this behavior? Can anyone rationally defend that behavior?
There may be much deeper levels to this story that may never be exposed. Pedophile rings or powerful business and political forces trying to protect their reputations from association with The Second Mile and what may have been a systematic exploitation of at risk PA kids. Perhaps McQueary’s life has been threatened and maybe he faces some serious charges if he fails to do what the attorney general made a deal with him to do.
Well perhaps he will have 4 million reasons to live with it.
I've often wondered how much of MM's story was put into his mouth by prosecutors. The word "rhythmic" of course, and the estimated age of the child...MM of all people would know that a child that age would not be brought into a weight room. Associating a sound with an activity is a conditioned response, so one wonders what activities he was involved in to learn that response. There was chat about him sending pictures of his genitalia to co-eds, but I haven't heard any follow up to that.
ReplyDeleteThe best argument is to follow Ockam's Razor and take the statement of V2 at face value. They were slapping towels. The kid hears a locker door slam and pokes his head out of the shower. Sandusky stops everything, puts a towel around him, and gets out of Dodge.
When the defense attorney questioning MM slapped his hand against his leg 3 times and asked "like that?". The whole "rhythmic slapping sounds" thing really seemed absurd. Wet hands slapping a wet wall or wet feet on a tile floor would seem to be a far more common suspicion than wet skin on wet skin. Why would anyone suspect sex from 3 slapping sounds coming from a locker room shower? Not to mention that there is no "rhythm" to 3 slaps since rhythm requires a repeated pattern of beats.
DeleteWas MM thinking he could profit from that brief encounter from the beginning? If he was abused as a child by a coach he might have jumped to the conclusion that the boy in the shower was being abused. But the pain and shock of a 10 year old being anally raped by a man Sandusky's size sure doesn't fit with the MM description of the boy's demeanor. He doesn't describe the boy as being distressed, fearful, embarrassed or horrified by whatever was happening. That alone makes his conclusions questionable. Anal penetration of a child that size would never be painless and it would certainly result in a real emotional response.
It is a touchy subject not easily broached with a jury. Not something most people would experience. But surely anyone can imagine the horror that kind of thing would incite in a child. MM describes the child as standing beside JS without fear or pain or embarrassment. It just makes no sense to me.
That's why I think MM could leave the child with JS and leave. Surely had the child been in pain or fear he would have done something to help. Or would he? So why is MM so convinced a rape had taken place?
Mike's father John McQueary is a noted pioneer of Physician Assistants programs: "While working to build the Physician Assistant Program at Duke, John also pioneered the physician assistant concept at the national level. He organized the first meeting of the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants and served as President of the American Academy of Physician Assistants for two terms (1970-1972). During his tenure, the first Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants was published, and he established the first student chapters at Duke and Alderson-Broaddus College in West Virginia. John was instrumental in organizing the first national conference for physician assistants and in promoting the PA concept to groups such as the American Group Practice Association and the American Medical Association. John served as President of the National Renal Administrators Association (1981-82) and is recognized as a founding leader of the American Academy of Physician Assistants." http://paprogram.mc.duke.edu/Hall-of-Fame/Inductees/John-McQueary/
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that his failure to respond to a report of possible child abuse is as serious as is Jon Dranov's. Current-day dementia or not, John McQueary shares an enormous part of the shame for negligent inaction that has cost his community, PSU, and Coach Paterno so much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood observation rdk.
DeleteCurley and Schultz knew that MM had gone to his father and Dr. Dranov immediately following the event. They knew his father and Doctor had decided not to involve police that night and here it was several days later when any evidence of rape or chance to identify the child was long gone. If MM's story was not enough to get his father and Doctor to act immediately to protect the boy what would they think? They don't know MM and nobody knows him as well as his father and Doctor.
But the prosecutors are bent on blaming PSU through these administrators evidently without considering the inaction of John McQueary or Doctor Dranov. Why should we consider these two men guilty of criminal failure to report when they are more than a week removed from the event that was reported to the father and Doctor that night?
I cannot help but believe that MM's story was simply not credible to any of them IF he actually told them he observed a sexual assault. I'm no "rocket scientist"
but MM's wildly variant stories about his emphatic insistence that he observed some sexual assault are not very easy to believe:
ROCKET SCIENTIST
At the first preliminary hearing in December 2011, Mike McQueary could not remember the exact words he used to describe the act with his father, but at the latest hearing he recalls saying "you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on." This is quite a change from the "extremely sexual and over the lines" terminology he used at the 12/2011 hearing. Where did these new words come from?
Answer: John McQueary.
While John McQueary also used the terms "extremely sexual" in his 12/2011 preliminary hearing testimony, John introduced the "rocket scientist" term at the Sandusky trial on 6/12/2012 (page 10). His exact words, in typical John McQueary, confusing fashion, were:
"He said it didn't take a rocket scientist or something like that. He might not have said rocket scientist to figure out what was going on."
Remember, this is the same John McQueary who testified that he had never been to the Dauphin County courthouse -- where he testified at the 12/2011 preliminary hearing.
When pressed about what he said to Dr. Dranov, he could not remember the exact words. So, apparently "rocket scientist" was a code word shared only by Mike and his father (unlike the term "horsing around" which John said was archaic and Mike wouldn't have known about and that it was never used in the McQueary home).
Interestingly enough, the "rocket scientist" word was never used in Mike's discussions with Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, or Gary Schultz.
More interesting is the fact that McQueary could not remember much at all about what he said to his father and Dr. Dranov on Friday night, but is absolutely sure what he told Joe Paterno the next morning and he's absolutely sure what he told Curley and Schultz at least 10 days after he talked to Paterno. Those certain words were:
To Curley and Schultz:
12/16/2011: "extremely sexual and over the lines" (p. 32)
7/29/2013: "a sexual situation, molestation incident" (p. 18)
To Paterno:
12/16/2011: "extremely sexual in nature" (p. 24)
7/29/2013: "very bad sexual act, molestation act with a minor" (p. 9)
As Jim Clemente postulated, it is impossible for anyone to remember the exact words they used in a discussion ten or twelve years ago. And it's absolutely incredible that the state continues to pursue perjury charges on statements that cannot be corroborated by another witness.
Had John McQueary or Dr. Dranov immediately involved police the boy could have been identified and taken to a hospital for a rape kit and questioned by police as to the nature of any contact he may have had with Sandusky. I believe the meeting with Curley and Schultz was at least 10 days after the event so any evidence of rape would have been very questionable.
DeleteThe inaction of the father and the Doctor ended the real opportunity to stop Sandusky "IF" a rape had taken place. I don't think it did but it certainly would have revealed grooming behavior and should have warned Sandusky to stop with the showers. But MM did not give an explanation or description that was intense enough to convince those men to act.
People are quick to blame without deep thought about circumstances and credibility. A naked man and boy in a shower are automatically criminal in most minds it seems now. So every foster father/grandfather or coach or "big brother" should automatically rule out workouts and showers with male children in their care?
As an avid camper and RV owner I've been in dozens of situations where men and boys have been in the communal showers at a campground around 9pm at night. I have no way of knowing if the child belongs with the man but I never before considered it strange to see a man and boy at the campground showers at 9pm. I don't think that would have been a red flag for me that night if I had walked into that locker room. If I knew of Sandusky as the TSM founder and saw him with a boy in the showers I think I would have thought the child was in his care and that the boy had asked to go with him to his workout and that he needed to shower like most boys do prior to going to bed. Now I think most people would be extremely suspicious of what might be perfectly reasonable behavior.
Thanks for sorting all this out Barry. I have sons so cannot help feeling sorry for MM. However, he needs to get out of his father's house, face the public and those whose lives he has destroyed and tell the truth if he is ever to find some redemption.
DeleteThe timeframe for the meeting with Curley/Schultz has never been established. MM has changed his mind on this, too.
DeleteCarole I think you would have encouraged your sons to go to the police were you ever in that situation. Your concern for sons would include concern for the child left in Sandusky's control. Mike was an adult - as well as his father and the Doctor. As adults they are responsible for protecting any child in that kind of danger. Hard to excuse their collective behavior and lack of concern for the boy IF they truly believed he was under the control of a sexual predator at that point. They should have let the police sort it out. I can't find any reason for the failure to make that call.
DeleteTo expand on that thought - the only reason not to call the police would be Mike's hesitance based on his lack of being certain. And if he was uncertain that night how could he become more certain 10 days later when speaking with Curley and Schultz. The obvious thing would be that he was suspicious - perhaps highly suspicious - but after considering that he only based his suspicion on the 3 slaps and the presence of the man and boy together - he decided with his father & Dr Dranov that he could not involve police due to his uncertainty.
DeleteWhat's also interesting is that MM spent 2 hours with his father and Dr Dranov and indicated nothing sexually happened earlier that evening. Now, we are suppose to believe, the next day, he has a 10 minute conversation with Joe and he's given him this clear picture that Sandusky was doing something sexually to a young boy. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're missing anything Lion. McQueary's stories don't make much sense to me.
DeleteMike McQueary has told this story at least eleven times and it was probably different every time. However, the details of his stories in 2010 and 2011 have been different each time.
DeleteThe only things he is consistent on appear to be that he heard sounds and looked toward the shower.
However, it's pretty clear he changed his story in 2011 after being hammered by the press about abandoning the child.
And I think the locker room photos really tell the story here. If Sandusky was molesting a child, why would he pick the ONLY place in the shower that would be visible from the lockers via looking in the mirror or by direct view? That makes no sense.
If the OAG influenced Mike's testimony, it was about WHERE Sandusky and the boy had to be positioned in order for him to see ANYTHING.
Contriving the testimony to fit the narrative likely resulted in the oversight that produced the ongoing conflict regarding who saw who. V2 and JS both claim they didn't see who was in the locker room that night. MM's evolving versions of the encounter lend more weight to JS/V2 here. MM even specifically states that he faced the two, didn't simply observe them from behind when they may not have noticed his presence. When you add the possibility of OAG manipulation of MM's statement(s), the likelihood he observed nothing at all should have seemed a very strong possibility for those scrutinizing the encounter. In placing himself face to face with the man and the boy in the shower in his testimony, he took on a clear obligation to act, one that the real situation apparently didn't call for. From that point forward, MM could never do the right thing in anyone's mind. Perhaps at some point AG Kane's investigation will alter the landscape sufficiently that Mike can come clean, and escape his boyhood bedroom.
DeleteIf the whole story ever gets told, you will be amazed at how much politics had to do with this. Especially Tom Corbett.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Barry for your analysis. One question I've never seen answered is-I read at some point that MM, his father and Dranov discussed calling the police but rejected it. Why? Because they didn't have enough information to consider it criminal? (MM's denial of something sexual to Dranov according to Dranov's own statement-asked 3 times). Or they knew enough about PSU policy to know that the correct procedure was to inform the supervisor (Paterno)? Unlikely. Puzzling.
ReplyDeleteThank you Helen - Some have postulated that the McQueary's might have thought to "profit" from the situation by currying favor with JVP in order to gain a permanent position for Mike on the coaching staff. Eventually he did become a paid permanent staffer. Hard to know the motives but their combined failure to alert authorities left that child in serious danger if MM was truly convinced of sexual assault. Hard to see how the adults in the room wouldn't call police or at least confront Sandusky to see if the child was safe.
DeleteThank you for your analysis, Barry-good to see you back. One question-I have read that MM, his father and Dranov discussed reporting to the police but rejected it. Why? Because they didn't have enough information to consider it criminal? Surely the father and Dranov would know that it didn't have to be rape to be reported. Have any of them answered this? Or did they know enough about PSU policy to know that MM was to report it to his supervisor (Paterno)? Unlikely.
ReplyDeleteHelen, would it be ok to link this article to your BOT Facebook Page? If so would you do me that honor?
DeleteAbsent calling the police, the proper move would be to inform Jack Raykovitz, who was Sandusky's boss and as an agent of the County, responsible for the safety of Second Mile children and the conduct of his employees. Curley, in fact, did that. Joe Paterno had absolutely no authority to do anything. PSU officials had no authority to try to contact the child. I do not think that the discourse between Curley and Raykovitz was at all cordial.
ReplyDeleteThe words that McQueary spoke at the preliminary hearing were put into his mouth by prosecutors. Kathlene Kane would be an idiot if she did not know what MM was going to say. Kane has evidently renewed MM's license to lie. Kane intends to press on with the prosecution. She has put herself on the tines of a fork. Spanier's attorneys are world class litigators. I do not know what game Kane is playing, but it is indeed most dangerous.
Spot on, Gregory.
DeleteBy the time Joe found out 12 hours later, the child was probably not with Sandusky and in no "danger." A 9-1-1 emergency was not at hand, as it was when MM first "heard" the incident occur.
The proper thing under the law was exactly what PSU did, they consulted with the attorney who apparently advised them to call CYS. Schultz testified that he believed the call was made. I suspect the break down was in WHO he asked to make the call.....Tom Harmon.
Harmon mislabeled the 1998 investigation file so the media wouldn't find it. Harmon went to the same church as Sandusky and was Sandusky's neighbor. I think Harmon faked it. He told Schultz he called CYS but never made the call. Then acted as a "go between" for Schultz and CYS -- except CYS was not on the other end of the conversation. yIt was all Harmon, using the 1998 "playbook."
This would explain the delay in them talking to McQueary and Sandusky. And the fact that they had DPW as their back up plan if Second Mile was uncooperative about use of facilities.