ok, who wants to defend Mcqueary now

[freeplessinseattle]

From today's testimony:

"McQueary said he saw Sandusky was behind a boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years old, with his hands wrapped around the boy’s waist. He said the boy was facing a wall, with his hands on it.

He said he peeked into the shower several times and that the last time he looked in, Sandusky and the boy had separated. He said he didn’t say anything, but “I know they saw me. They looked directly in my eye, both of them.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/penn-state-top-administrators-face-preliminary-hearing-on-charges-they-didnt-report-sandusky/2011/12/16/gIQAFZgZxO_story.html


Now, I'm not the best in crisis situations, but my feeling is that this is not how someone in shock reacts. Someone conflicted, maybe, but that is no defense for not doing a damn thing to stop the abuse!! Some people are just missing a vital part of their soul.

[rug]

1. He's soulless or a liar.

[Missy Vixen]

2. McQueary was more concerned with saving his job

and Joe Paterno than actually getting help for that poor kid.

There is NO excuse for McQueary's actions. NONE.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

3. He peeked 'several times' and never once did he stop the rape????

That's what's so sick about this... he knew well what was going on, he knew the child was 10 or 12, he knew Sandusky... and yet, he didn't do jack shit to stop the rape.

It is sad, disgusting, unreal, despicable, reprehensible... all those things rolled into one.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I would've silently walked outside and called 911, then waited silently and hidden, waiting for the

cops.

The likelihood is that he would've been caught. They could've checked the boy for semen.

I wouldn't have attacked Sandusky because I'm little and he probably would've bashed me over the head or something.

[ladywnch]

10. in one recent interview he claimed he DID stop it...

not physically stop it (what other kind of stopping is there?) but he made sure it was 'finished' before he left. Now he's saying he peeked in on them several times before they finished and he left........what a scum bag.

the problem here now is that he is destroying his own credibility. I'm not sure that this isn't what he has been coached to do......'trash your own credibility which will call the whole case into question......and ultimately save Sandusky, the University and, most importantly, JoPa's legacy.......

[CoffeeCat]

4. I don't see how he lives with himself...

He witnessed a young boy being raped. Yes, he did tell Paterno and yes, he was most likely
very upset by what he saw. However, after NOTHING was done, it was apparent to McQueary that
he was complicit in a cover up.

McQueary had tons of options. One of them was saying nothing and continuing to collect a paycheck,
knowing that a traumatized little boy was out there somewhere--without any help.

This entire story is just sickening beyond belief.

[izquierdista]

8. He had fewer than you think

The machinery to shut him up was in place and running fine to keep everything quiet.

[CoffeeCat]

18. All McQuery had to do was TALK....

...and that could have been accomplished in hundreds of ways.

Please, do not try to suggest to me, that McQueary didn't have options. I don't give
a damn how "powerful" the Penn State "machinery" is or was.

A person still has options.

He could have called the FBI. He could have called the DCI office in his state. He
could have contacted someone at any national media outlet. He could have lawyered
up and gone to local police. He could have emailed those involved and expressed
concern--thus providing a paper trail.

So many options!

Sitting on your ass, doing nothing and allowing that poor victim to suffer alone---was ONE
option.

I have absolutely no tolerance for people who suggest that the big, bad boy's club at
Penn State was just sooooo powerful. Bullshit. When it comes to child rape, they only
have as much power as corroborators give them.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. they only have as much power as corroborators give them. -- pretty sure

you meant to say 'collaborators' (in the sense of 'enablers').

Or am I missing something?

[rocktivity]

5. When he saw that nothing was being done, why not go to the police himself?

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Because it would be his word against Sandusky's? Because it would be his word against Paterno's? Or because he was aware of Sandusky's "reputation" and knew a good job opportunity when he saw one?


rocktivity

[comipinko]

6. Or better yet, pinned sandusky , naked on the floor ,until police arrived.

With his knee "almost" strangling the letch.

[abelenkpe]

9. So the prosecution is going to base a case off of this guys testimony?

McQueary who witnessed this, didn't stop it, lived with the information for ten years, then came forward and later lied in an email to friends that he stopped the incident and reported it to police?

The janitor has dementia and McQueary is the only person who is a witness. He's despicable. A decent defense lawyer will tear him up on the stand. Guess we should be glad the defense looks to be a bunch of buffoons?

[SomethingFishy]

11. No the case is based off the testimony of the victims...

McQueary is just "evidence"...

[Spazito]

12. The prosecution has 10 victims, some of whom will be testifying...

so, no, the prosecution is not solely depending on McQueary for their case. McQueary's eye-witness testimony relates to only ONE of the 10 victims.

Here is the pdf on the original changes from November 4, 2011. Since then, more changes have been laid.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2011/1105/20111105_070457_sandusky.pdf

[LynneSin]

14. I tried reading that pdf - it was like reading sick child porn

I mean it was an account of what happened but after 2-3 pages I had to stop. It was too nauseating for me to finish.

[Spazito]

15. I know, it is beyond sickening...

I only posted it because some people are focusing on McQueary as THE key to the case and we NEED to remember the 10 victims, they are the basis for the charges.

[LynneSin]

17. It's an important document

just kinda felt the same way when I considered watching that Human Centipede movie - I was going to read/see something very offensive and realized i had not desire to read/see it.

[MADem]

28. McQueary could be hit by a crosstown bus and this case would still move forward. NT

[rocktivity]

21. Is one of those victims #2, the one McQueary saw?

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

rocktivity

[Spazito]

23. Yes, victim #2 is the one McQuaery witnessed being raped by Sandusky...

according to the Grand Jury Presentment.

[rocktivity]

25. I mean, has Victim #2 actually testified,

or does he plan to?


rocktivity

[Spazito]

26. From what I have read, they haven't identified which of the victims will testify...

or whether victim #2 has been found by the authorities as he was unknown at the time of the Grand Jury Presentment.

Sandusky's lawyer claims he's talked to the victim but who knows whether that's true or not.

[LynneSin]

13. McQueary says he informed people within Penn State but no one went to the police

Which makes him just as liable.

I doubt he'll spend time behind bars but I suspect he will be held accountable with the Civilian lawsuits being filed against Penn State University and those involved.

If the powers to be don't report the crime then do it yourself.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

16. Was this particular victim (the child McQueary witnessed being raped) ever identified?

I seem to recall that this particular victim has never been identified and/or has not been among those who will testify. Yet, someone must know who he is. I hope he's ok, I hope he'll find the courage to testify and he will find some peace.

[abelenkpe]

19. Pretty sure I read that that particular victim claims to have no recollection of the event. nt

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

20. ok.. I see. thanks! n/t

[WinkyDink]

27. I'm positive you read no such thing. The DEFENSE CLAIMS they have found this now-young man; there is

zero evidence of that.

[abelenkpe]

30. O no I am positive I read that

I read that on another parenting board and elsewhere. It is a claim by the defense. I have no idea if that is true and no one else does either. That's why there will be a trial. Like most I think Sandusky is guilty. However I also think that the case could not go as smooth as all expect as mcQueary lied about filing a police report, and didn't really report what he saw for years. His character and honesty will be in question.

[alp227]

24. His orange hair should turn into napalm fire.

[riderinthestorm]

29. Nope, no defense from me. McQueary had the opportunity to explain why he did not dial 911

on that day he saw what was going on. I was one of those who theorized that perhaps McQueary was also a victim (his family were friends and neighbors of the Sandusky's, he was over at the Sandusky home numerous times as a friend of one of the Sandusky boys). It seemed logical that he may have been a victim himself and perhaps was not thinking clearly when he witnessed that episode.

Clearly, that's not the case. I apologize for ANY inference that perhaps McQueary was also a victim. He obviously is a craven fool who didn't step up in the face of obvious wrongdoing.