While some new information was revealed at the McQueary v. Penn State University civil trial, the bottom line is that at the conclusion of the trial the public knows far more about what Mike McQueary did NOT say to PSU officials than what he actually said.
But that came about before the McQueary trial was held.
PSU legal representative Nancy Conrad could have defeated McQueary's misrepresentation claim by first pointing out what McQueary did not say, then following that up by citing the testimony of what Mike did NOT do after making his report to PSU officials.
What McQueary Didn't Say
According to the courtroom observers I contacted, McQueary was not grilled about his previous testimony that would have revealed he never told former PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz anything that would have required them to do anything more than ban Jerry Sandusky from using the workout facilities with participants of The Second Mile.
Statements from McQueary's December 16, 2011 testimony follow:
"I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one." (p. 72)
"I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy that I could not see his hands..." (p. 75)
"I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on a boy's genitals.." (p. 75)
"I would not have used the words anal intercourse." (p. 81)
"I think it's clear I can't remember the words I used." (p. 102)
To last statement alone is rather important considering that in the case of causing someone to act -- and for individuals to be charged with perjury for their interpretation of what was said -- that the words used are of the utmost importance.
PSU's legal team could have piled on a similar statement about Mike's faulty memory of what he said in 2001 from his July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing testimony.
"..there's no way I could tell you, one hundred percent, the actual words that I used." (p. 25)
The fact that Mike couldn't remember the words he used should have made this case moot -- and it goes back to the reason why there are statutes of limitations on many offenses. People simply can't be held to reliably testify to things that happened many years ago.
Again, words matter and it was clear Mike didn't recall using any explicit terms or the specific language in his conversations with Curley and Schultz.
McQueary Satisfied With Curley's Decision
McQueary's original legal claim stated he did not go to the police in 2001 (or thereafter) because he was misled by Curley and Schultz that an investigation had taken place and the actions that he was not aware of the actions taken.
PSU's legal team would have only needed to cite Mike's testimony that he was fine with the decision made in 2001 to debunk this frivolous claim.
Here is Mike's testimony from page 87 of the December 16, 2011 preliminary hearing stating that he was satisfied with Curley's action to contact The Second Mile.
Finally, Conrad and company could have quoted from page 64 of Mike's July 2013 preliminary hearing testimony to convince the jury that his misfortunes were of his own making.
Why PSU Threw the Case
PSU's legal team intentionally failed to emphasize those points because doing so would have undermined the very costly false narrative that the University used to remove former President Graham Spanier and the late Joe Paterno and that it has stood behind since November 2011.
The direct cost of defending the narrative has cost PSU approximately $165 million including:
$8.5 million paid to Louis Freeh for his sham investigation;
$60 million paid out to the state government based on the sham process used by the NCAA to penalize PSU athletics;
$93 million paid to various claimants in the sham settlements in the PMA insurance case; and,
$6.1 million paid to McQueary for its insufficient defense of the Misrepresentation claim.
As the evidence all along has shown, PSU's decisions in the Sandusky scandal were not made out of panic nor were they due to incompetency. These were intentional decisions to assist the Office of Attorney General (OAG) in poisoning the jury pool or otherwise convict PSU officials in the court of public opinion.