McQueary stopped incident & called/talked to police.

Billso said:
Because you're an employee of the university and being told not to talk. And because your personal attorney is telling you the same thing. And wisely so.
Click to expand...

Well, like everybody involved in this, he's not receiving very good counsel.

The university is wanting to throw him under the bus regardless in the hopes of being able to wash their hands of this.

His lawyer should've had something out immediately about this in an attempt to head off the **** storm that was headed his way.
 
kuhntz said:
You're entire post is full of false information. Sandusky was done in 1999. PSU still allows him on campus with an office and access to football facilities as part of his retirement, no longer has anything to do with JoePa....incident in question was from 2002. 3 years after Paterno is no longer in anyway his boss.

If McQueary went to the police...Paterno should have never been fired, period. Why would he go to the police if he was notified of the incident and McQueary had already done so?
Click to expand...

If McQueary didn't tell the grand jury that he intervened the act and immediately went to the police, then it makes it pretty hard to believe this is the truth. Sounds a lot more to me like he's trying to save both his skin and JoePa's legacy. That seems a helluva lot more likely than that the most important bit of information just slipped his mind at the grand jury.
 
kuhntz said:
herbyhawk said:
actually Joe Paterno is not donig a thing about it, if he was told about and he told the AD,Sandusky was still his DC at the time, even a stupid person could and should have realized something was wrong, he had the power to suspend this monster but didn'tsorry but Joe Pa is up to his ears in this cover upMcCready was just a GRAD ASSISTANT at the time and yeah there are FOUR types of police involved, CAMPUS POLICE, CITY POLICE, SHERRIFFS DEPT. AND THE STATE POLICEthe way things are going, considering who has been fired, it would not surprise me if the Campus Police were involved
Click to expand...
You're entire post is full of false information. Sandusky was done in 1999. PSU still allows him on campus with an office and access to football facilities as part of his retirement, no longer has anything to do with JoePa....incident in question was from 2002. 3 years after Paterno is no longer in anyway his boss.If McQueary went to the police...Paterno should have never been fired, period. Why would he go to the police if he was notified of the incident and McQueary had already done so?
Click to expand...

Umm, maybe when he realized that Sandusky wasn't involved in an investigation and was still seeing him hanging out with young boys? Maybe then he should have, ya think?
 
tm3308 said:
If McQueary didn't tell the grand jury that he intervened the act and immediately went to the police, then it makes it pretty hard to believe this is the truth. Sounds a lot more to me like he's trying to save both his skin and JoePa's legacy. That seems a helluva lot more likely than that the most important bit of information just slipped his mind at the grand jury.
Click to expand...

Why? He said in the email "I did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room." Nothing in the grand jury presentment contradicts that.

And nothing in his new email says he "immediately went to the police" - you're putting words in his mouth. It says, quote, that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police". The grand jury presentment confirms he talked to Gary Schulz, who oversaw university police.

In summary, the ONLY part of the email that could be seen as contradictory is "did have discussions with police..." (in addition to Schulz). The GJ report says McQueary was "never questioned by University Police". It does not quote McQueary on that, and we do not have McQueary's testimony, only the brief GJ summarization.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF

These are real human beings. Details matter.
 
I think this confusion is just another reason why the rush to judgement last week was wrong. Why not let the facts come clear before firing JoePa?
What if McQueary did talk to the police,and told Joe he had talked to the police and that satisfied Joe that it would be investigated?

I think the police who investigated Sandusky in 1998 have totally escaped scrutiny.
And the local DA,who happened to be the current Governor Corbett...who wanted to quickly burn JoePa and the rest last week....wonder why? To keep the spotlight away from his depts decision not to pursue Sandusky in 98?

This story is far from complete. As they say,a grand jury report is not designed to show all the testimony,only the parts they want to show to build a case for indictment of thier suspects. Testimony that might exonerate McQueary and JoePa might not be deemed necessary for this report..
 
JHHawk said:
I think this confusion is just another reason why the rush to judgement last week was wrong. Why not let the facts come clear before firing JoePa?
What if McQueary did talk to the police,and told Joe he had talked to the police and that satisfied Joe that it would be investigated?

I think the police who investigated Sandusky in 1998 have totally escaped scrutiny.
And the local DA,who happened to be the current Governor Corbett...who wanted to quickly burn JoePa and the rest last week....wonder why? To keep the spotlight away from his depts decision not to pursue Sandusky in 98?

This story is far from complete. As they say,a grand jury report is not designed to show all the testimony,only the parts they want to show to build a case for indictment of thier suspects. Testimony that might exonerate McQueary and JoePa might not be deemed necessary for this report..
Click to expand...

Joe Pa doesn't have to commit a crime to be fired. Joe Pa obviously handled the 2002 situation in a manner that has put Penn St. university in an extremely bad place, both legally, and in the eyes of the public. That is more than enough justification to fire the Joe Pa. The first step in cleaning this up for the Board of Regents had to be getting rid of any and all parties that had any contact with the events surrounding the 2002 incident. This includes getting rid of the head coach who had knowledge of the situation, no matter if he is a 1st year coach, or a living legend...
 
Not saying that the board of regents knows all, but I don't believe they fire joepa or do anything drastic unless they know something....
 
This contradicts his grand jury testimony, leading to a potential unravelling of the case. I would not be surprised if this is a coordinated effort to try to keep Joe P. from any blame. Those involved really don't care about justice or protecting children from a pedophile, so they could care less if their actions make it more difficult to convict Sandusky.
 
kuhntz said:
You're entire post is full of false information. Sandusky was done in 1999. PSU still allows him on campus with an office and access to football facilities as part of his retirement, no longer has anything to do with JoePa....incident in question was from 2002. 3 years after Paterno is no longer in anyway his boss.

If McQueary went to the police...Paterno should have never been fired, period. Why would he go to the police if he was notified of the incident and McQueary had already done so?
Click to expand...
JoePa ran that university, heck he threw the President out of his house when Spanier came to ask about his retirement. Nothing went on without his knowledge. If he would have insisted that the university break all ties with Sandisgusting, it would have. But JS was still allowed full access to the facilities, and a playground to sexually assault children.

Sorry, but this McQueary thing does seem more like a CYA moment.

cibula11 said:
Not saying that the board of regents knows all, but I don't believe they fire joepa or do anything drastic unless they know something....
Click to expand...
This.
 
Just because it is not in the report doesn't mean he didn't say it. The report was only the findings from the Grand Jury, if he testified that he called the police and they didn't believe him then they might not have cited it in their opinion.

If this is true then I don't know how this makes PSU look any worse. To me if it is true it makes the police look really bad as well as the prosecutor's office.
 
We don't have his testimony but if he did talk to police why wouldn't that be mentioned in the summary? True he did tell Schultz who oversaw the university police and was assured that it would be handled. Clearly it wasn't handled. And if he did speak with police(besides Schultz) why was nothing done about it? Doesn't make any sense. My biggest problem with McQueary remains that he left the little boy there after what he saw. Sure he stopped once he saw McQueary, so what? The guy was there 30-45 seconds per his email and the summary also said he left immediately. So what is this nonsense about "I didn't just turn and run". You didn't "stop" it you witnessed it and Sandusky stopped because of that. Then you took off instead of making sure the kid was ok. Then you called your Dad instead of the cops. Nothing you did was "right".
 
You all have to realize that at this point, a solid week or so after this has come out, that everyone involved is being coached to be as "innocent" as possible. The prosecutors do have to prove guilt...not the other way around. If there's enough loop holes in evidence then it's pretty easy to make a case for the defense.(It's gonna be a lot of hearsay)....You do remember the Casey Anthony debacle, right?
 
deanvogs said:
Joe Pa doesn't have to commit a crime to be fired. Joe Pa obviously handled the 2002 situation in a manner that has put Penn St. university in an extremely bad place, both legally, and in the eyes of the public. That is more than enough justification to fire the Joe Pa. The first step in cleaning this up for the Board of Regents had to be getting rid of any and all parties that had any contact with the events surrounding the 2002 incident. This includes getting rid of the head coach who had knowledge of the situation, no matter if he is a 1st year coach, or a living legend...
Click to expand...

I get that firing Paterno was the best way for BOT to buy some time,and deflect attention.
What I do not get is how the police investigators from 1998 and the DA are not being hammered. They could have stopped Sandusky in his tracks in 1998,which was actually their job,as opposed to Paterno,whose job is coaching football. But,of course,he is the biggest target so forget those professionals whose jobs it is protect the public...just go for the big fish,whose job is not protecting the public.

And of course there was no firing of Curley or Schultz,whose jobs it was to protect the university from scandals like this...nah,go for the big fish.
Ultimately,in the 2002 incident, I think Schultz and Curley are most culpable,as they have adminstrative responsiblities that include public safety(Schultz) and protecting the university and athletes from liablity or danger(Curley).

But,again,I am willing to let the facts come out so there is actual evidence of wrong-doing on all those guilty parties. Just me,but I still believe in presumption of innocence. I know, they can fire JoePa for any reason they choose. Does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. But then,that brings us back to the whole issue...legally correct,morally wrong...
 
Rome made a good point today and it basically sums up how I feel about McQueary and the whole "you don't know what you would have done" crowd. McQueary states that he was in a tough spot and had to make difficult and quick decisions. Really? YOU were in a tough spot and in a difficult situation? How about the 10 year old boy. Was he in a tougher and more difficult spot than you? You failed, and you don't get another chance at it.
 
EddyP said:
We don't have his testimony but if he did talk to police why wouldn't that be mentioned in the summary? True he did tell Schultz who oversaw the university police and was assured that it would be handled
Click to expand...

Several plausible possibilities.

  • McQueary talked to Schulz with Schulz' police commissioner in the room, which the GJ summary did not consider being "interviewed by police".
  • McQueary was, in fact, interviewed by the police but they did not file a written report, or destroyed or "lost" it. Wouldn't be the first time.
  • McQueary is conflating talking to Schulz with "discussing with the police" and exaggerated in his email making it sound like separate things.
 
JHHawk said:
I think this confusion is just another reason why the rush to judgement last week was wrong. Why not let the facts come clear before firing JoePa?
What if McQueary did talk to the police,and told Joe he had talked to the police and that satisfied Joe that it would be investigated?

I think the police who investigated Sandusky in 1998 have totally escaped scrutiny.
And the local DA,who happened to be the current Governor Corbett...who wanted to quickly burn JoePa and the rest last week....wonder why? To keep the spotlight away from his depts decision not to pursue Sandusky in 98?

This story is far from complete. As they say,a grand jury report is not designed to show all the testimony,only the parts they want to show to build a case for indictment of thier suspects. Testimony that might exonerate McQueary and JoePa might not be deemed necessary for this report..
Click to expand...

And yet ANOTHER answer could be that McQueary wasn't even ASKED whether or not he went to the police.

As much as I hated to see JoePa go out under this "cloud", in the end, the vote to fire him was unanimous. I have to believe there were both "pro" and "anti" JoePa people on that board. The vote being unanimous says, "JoePa is a lightning rod and needs to go".

I may/may not like it, you may/may not like it, but it was the Board of Trustees that had to deal with it. I think they were in a no-win situation. Being what it was, "house-cleaning" was the answer. Stupidly, they didn't fully "clean house". On the other hand, SOMEbody has to coach the team the rest of the season. Bringing in a completely new staff wasn't/isn't feasible, IMO. But JoePa getting the boot, while Curley remained "on leave" and McQueary wasn't placed on leave until AFTER JoePa was fired is, to me, an indicator that JoePa was partly a scapegoat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top