ADVERTISEMENT

I feel for Mike McQuery. No matter what he did / didn't do. It was never going to be right.....

Look....

MM called Daddy-O from his office minutes after seeing JS. Why? Had to be a reasoNew.

The three discussed this late Friday. Why? Had to be a reason.

You don't discuss horseplay.

And you don't wait until the next day to report anal rape of a child to a football coach. At least no normal person would.

I don't think anyone has ever denied that he saw "something". The questions are what exactly did he see and how exactly did he describe what he saw to Daddy-O, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
We all know it wasn't anal rape. What's your point.

We all may know it, but Mike is all but certain that is what he witnesssed according to at least some versions of his testimony under oath. You are trying to connect what he might have seen to his subsequent actions. Good luck with that.
 
"......Never going to be right?" Horseshit! Go into the shower, get the kid to safety, then call the cops. That would have been the right thing to do.
At the very least, considering the "slapping sounds" he says he heard, he should have called PSU Police, and stayed there. The story he has told means he left a kid being sexually assaulted, alone with his attacker.
 
totally agree. he either changed his story or was told to change his story. Both Curley and Schultz stuck to their guns on that. When asked why they pleaded, they both said "because I should have done more". I agree with that. They made a bad decision...but MM contributed to that. (honestly think that Curley and Schutz knew they could get on with their lives, retain their pensions, and not serve jail time. Being retired, they didn't have much else to lose and the risk of getting in front of the crazy central PA juries was too much)
Schultz just testified MM told him he heard slapping sounds and saw Sandusky behind a kid with his arm around the kid's waist. He also said MM never used the word "horseplay.
 
We all may know it, but Mike is all but certain that is what he witnesssed according to at least some versions of his testimony under oath. You are trying to connect what he might have seen to his subsequent actions. Good luck with that.

Mike said he never saw anal rape.
 
Then Mike is an absolute f*cking coward. HE left a kid alone with a monster who was raping him.

So, when you were young, if you saw an older man (your Uncle) hugging a kid in a YMCA shower, you'd have beaten the sh!t out of your Uncle right then and there? For a hug?

The issue here is "grooming". And, neither PA Daddy-O nor Dr Dranov picked up on it. MM apparently didn't know what to do so he called his dad. Why did his dad tell him to come home?

MM obviously told him over the phone the purpose of the phone call, right? MM was reaching out to his father.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baconking1
So, when you were young, if you saw an older man (your Uncle) hugging a kid in a YMCA shower, you'd have beaten the sh!t out of your Uncle right then and there? For a hug?

The issue here is "grooming". And, neither PA Daddy-O nor Dr Dranov picked up on it. MM apparently didn't know what to do so he called his dad. Why did his dad tell him to come home?

MM obviously told him over the phone the purpose of the phone call, right? MM was reaching out to his father.

I'm sure mike was pretty shaken up and knew what would happen when this was made public. Probably why he called Joe, he figured Joe would know what to do.
 
Its a shame.
Either he saw something sexual-in which case he should have called the police or what he saw wasn't enough to call police-in which case he's now lying. He could have made things right.
 
Last edited:
You still are avoiding THE main problem: why did he call Daddy-O minutes after seeing JS? Had to be a reason.

Could've been them hugging, for example. Regardless, he saw something.
Yes, he saw an old man in the shower with a little boy late at night. He heard noises that didn't sound good. He was very uncomfortable with that situation. I would be too. Since he didn't see any sexual contact no need to call the police. So he calls his dad for advice as to what to do to try and stop Sandusky from being so stupid. At this point being stupid is all they know on Sandusky. And don't forget at that point in time Sandusky, due to his great work with the 2nd Mile, was as big a heroe as JoePa in State College. What does a young intern do to stop a legend from acting stupid?????????
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Mike said multiple times under oath that he believed he witnessed intercourse. If you and the Detective are unfamiliar with the term, you can look it up.

Intercourse: sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.

The jury acquitted on that count, but that's what he said.

When (and where) did MM state "under oath" he (ahem) believed he witnessed intercourse?

Please divulge. Thanks in advanced.
 
Yes, he saw an old man in the shower with a little boy late at night. He heard noises that didn't sound good. He was very uncomfortable with that situation. I would be too. Since he didn't see any sexual contact no need to call the police. So he calls his dad for advice as to what to do to try and stop Sandusky from being so stupid. At this point being stupid is all they know on Sandusky. And don't forget at that point in time Sandusky, due to his great work with the 2nd Mile, was as big a heroe as JoePa in State College. What does a young intern do to stop a legend from acting stupid?????????
So why is he now saying it was definitely sexual?
 
When (and where) did MM state "under oath" he (ahem) believed he witnessed intercourse?

Please divulge. Thanks in advanced.

Look it up in the Curley preliminary hearing transcript from Dec 2011. He said it multiple times there. Yep believe is the word he used. I'm pretty sure he said it at the Sandusky trial as well but I'm not sorting through that mess.
 
Hey

Question for you Judge or anyone else that knows: Did MM actually change his story after all these years or has the media gone off running their version of the changed story since that was better news for them??? Has MM actually now said that he witnessed a sexual assault that night?

He has said he saw what he believed to be a sexual assault. He has also added that he couldn't be 100% sure since he didn't see penetration (which the Sandusky jury took as being enough reasonable doubt to not convict Jerry on that charge). That sums up his testimony pretty much every time but it gets translated into all sorts of versions by not only the media but also numerous people on this and other boards. The "McQueary changed his story" story line comes a lot more from comparing second hand interpretations of what Mike said than it does from comparing his actual testimony.
 
Yes, he saw an old man in the shower with a little boy late at night. He heard noises that didn't sound good. He was very uncomfortable with that situation. I would be too. Since he didn't see any sexual contact no need to call the police. So he calls his dad for advice as to what to do to try and stop Sandusky from being so stupid. At this point being stupid is all they know on Sandusky. And don't forget at that point in time Sandusky, due to his great work with the 2nd Mile, was as big a heroe as JoePa in State College. What does a young intern do to stop a legend from acting stupid?????????

He either saw something "sexual" or he didn't. If he saw something sexual he's a coward. If he didn't, he's a liar. In either case, he should burn in hell.
 
So, when you were young, if you saw an older man (your Uncle) hugging a kid in a YMCA shower, you'd have beaten the sh!t out of your Uncle right then and there? For a hug?

The issue here is "grooming". And, neither PA Daddy-O nor Dr Dranov picked up on it. MM apparently didn't know what to do so he called his dad. Why did his dad tell him to come home?

MM obviously told him over the phone the purpose of the phone call, right? MM was reaching out to his father.
At night, far after hours when people are in the building? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend a guy who is adamant he saw something sexual, and did nothing. By the way, where in my post did I say he should beat the shit out of Jerry?
 
The OP is gone, this is guy threw a firecracker to that he could watch it spread into a nuclear war. MM is the most responsible person in this sordid affair, don;t take the bait and turn this into a 6 page thread.

He responsibly slammed a locker door shut and then did not call the cops.

#AlternativeResponsibility
 
"I believed that Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse with him."

- Mike McQueary, Preliminary hearing December, 2011 -
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
He has said he saw what he believed to be a sexual assault. He has also added that he couldn't be 100% sure since he didn't see penetration (which the Sandusky jury took as being enough reasonable doubt to not convict Jerry on that charge). That sums up his testimony pretty much every time but it gets translated into all sorts of versions by not only the media but also numerous people on this and other boards. The "McQueary changed his story" story line comes a lot more from comparing second hand interpretations of what Mike said than it does from comparing his actual testimony.
If what he saw was sexual assault, why did he leave that boy with a monster? You explain that one, genius. He left a boy alone with a man he believed was sexually assaulting him. Justify that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha T
Schultz just testified MM told him he heard slapping sounds and saw Sandusky behind a kid with his arm around the kid's waist. He also said MM never used the word "horseplay.

A contradiction to his GJ testimony which was pointed out by Spanier's lawyer during cross.
Also, when did Schultz talk directly to MM?
 
Last edited:
Schultz just testified MM told him he heard slapping sounds and saw Sandusky behind a kid with his arm around the kid's waist. He also said MM never used the word "horseplay.
No he didn't

Your a f-ing idiot.

That's all
 
If what he saw was sexual assault, why did he leave that boy with a monster? You explain that one, genius. He left a boy alone with a man he believed was sexually assaulting him. Justify that.

I don't know what his thought process was, so I'm not going to try to justify it.

What I do know is what he has testified to and how other people are distorting his testimony into something that he never said.
 
A contradiction to his GJ testimony which was pointed out by Spanier's lawyer.l during cross.

Yup. Which show why there's a big problem when you try to remember conversations from 16 years ago. There's a reason that crimes have statutes of limitations.
 
Yup. Which show why there's a big problem when you try to remember conversations from 16 years ago. There's a reason that crimes have statutes of limitations.

Amazing how striking a plea deal reducing multiple felonies to a single misdemeanor, with sentence hanging in the balance, can sharpen the old memory.
 
The problem is MM's testimony is that he's all over the map. He's sure that sex was occurring but couldn't see penetration, he was sure fondling was happening but couldn't see any hands. Because of this he's not 1000% sure. MM talks around this conundrum by saying he defines fondling as touching someone in a sexual way. So in summary all the sexual stuff in MM's testimony is his conjecture that he BELIEVED was happening, not what he actually saw.

From 12/16/11 prelim

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No

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.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not

**again, another WTF piece of MM’s testimony that doesn’t jive with him being certain a sex act occurred that night**
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
I don't know what his thought process was, so I'm not going to try to justify it.

What I do know is what he has testified to and how other people are distorting his testimony into something that he never said.
I take him at his testimony, which makes what he did or didn't do, all the worse. He ADMITTED walking away from a boy being sexually assaulted. HE should be prosecuted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtNittany and PSU65
I seem to remember reading, when this whole thing first broke, that MM first indicated that from where he was standing, at his locker, that he couldn't actually see them, just that he heard them. And along with this description was a diagram of the locker room backing it up.
 
He either saw something "sexual" or he didn't. If he saw something sexual he's a coward. If he didn't, he's a liar. In either case, he should burn in hell.

Me, at work, hugging a child before a surgical procedure reassuring him everything's gonna be fine, is not "sexual".

Jerry, naked in a shower hugging a naked child "is" sexual. It's not "sex, but sexual in nature.

No "normal" person, naked, in a YMCA for example, would hug a naked child in the shower. Never. Who does that UNLESS you're a pedophile?

IMO, this is along the lines as to what MM saw. He didn't know how to respond. But, to his credit, he called someone he trusted: Daddy'O - immediately.

The real failure is that Friday's "mini conference" they had and their advice to MM on what to do. MM was a graduate assistant and not too bright. Daddy-O and Dranov are Healthcare PROFESSIONALS. Key word: PROFESSIONALS. They failed MM.

Neither of them picked up on "grooming" or "inappropriate behavior".
 
I actually feel that Mike M is a sympathetic character. He clearly walked into a shitty situation through no fault of his own.

It has always been my feeling that he walked in and caught a quick glimpse of something that was disturbing to him. This is where the sliding scale of disturbing comes into play. It was clearly somewhere on the continuum somewhere between "I am certain there was full on anal rape" and "Gosh that's weird". I would speculate at the time it was closer to the later, but with a linger doubt that that could really be the former.

He calls his dad and tells him that he saw something weird and it could be really bad. His dad and Dr. D ask him exactly what he saw and he didn't really see anything that would indicate abuse but he had a feeling that could be the case. Both realizing that he didn't really witness anything but had a feeling, give him the advice that they did. "Go to Joe".

He does so, Joe puts him in contact with Curley and Shultz who do some level of interview. They both realize that Mike believes what was going on could have been really bad but also realize that he didn't really see anything. At the time Curley and Shultz do what they do based on the actual information that they have which essentially nothing more than creepy feeling from MM about what could have been happening.

Over the following 10 or so years Mike hears some local rumors about Jerry and becomes more convinced that what he saw was clearly something nefarious. MM hears from AG about the cases of abuse and is now 100% certain he saw something sexual.

Memory is strange thing and communication is never 100%. Take these factors all into account and we wind up where we are.

Do I think that MM did everything correct? No, could he have done things differently? Sure, but I think he was trying to do the right thing and was caught up in the OAGs plan
 
At night, far after hours when people are in the building? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend a guy who is adamant he saw something sexual, and did nothing. By the way, where in my post did I say he should beat the shit out of Jerry?

IIRC, MM is convinced something sexual was going on. Not that he SAW sex going on, there's a difference.
 
I actually feel that Mike M is a sympathetic character. He clearly walked into a shitty situation through no fault of his own.

It has always been my feeling that he walked in and caught a quick glimpse of something that was disturbing to him. This is where the sliding scale of disturbing comes into play. It was clearly somewhere on the continuum somewhere between "I am certain there was full on anal rape" and "Gosh that's weird". I would speculate at the time it was closer to the later, but with a linger doubt that that could really be the former.

He calls his dad and tells him that he saw something weird and it could be really bad. His dad and Dr. D ask him exactly what he saw and he didn't really see anything that would indicate abuse but he had a feeling that could be the case. Both realizing that he didn't really witness anything but had a feeling, give him the advice that they did. "Go to Joe".

He does so, Joe puts him in contact with Curley and Shultz who do some level of interview. They both realize that Mike believes what was going on could have been really bad but also realize that he didn't really see anything. At the time Curley and Shultz do what they do based on the actual information that they have which essentially nothing more than creepy feeling from MM about what could have been happening.

Over the following 10 or so years Mike hears some local rumors about Jerry and becomes more convinced that what he saw was clearly something nefarious. MM hears from AG about the cases of abuse and is now 100% certain he saw something sexual.

Memory is strange thing and communication is never 100%. Take these factors all into account and we wind up where we are.

Do I think that MM did everything correct? No, could he have done things differently? Sure, but I think he was trying to do the right thing and was caught up in the OAGs plan

True. But you danced over the late night get together mini conference at Daddy-O's house.

You see, Daddy-O and Dr Dranov should've picked up that even HOLDING HANDS in a shower (naked) with a kid is a no-no. Sure, they had a Q&A and determined "sex" wasn't seen. But, hugging...rubbing soap on a kids back...holding hands..."squeezing the guts out of him"...are all considered sexual in nature when it comes to an ADULT and a child (NAKED IN A SHOWER).
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Me, at work, hugging a child before a surgical procedure reassuring him everything's gonna be fine, is not "sexual".

Jerry, naked in a shower hugging a naked child "is" sexual. It's not "sex, but sexual in nature.

No "normal" person, naked, in a YMCA for example, would hug a naked child in the shower. Never. Who does that UNLESS you're a pedophile?

IMO, this is along the lines as to what MM saw. He didn't know how to respond. But, to his credit, he called someone he trusted: Daddy'O - immediately.

The real failure is that Friday's "mini conference" they had and their advice to MM on what to do. MM was a graduate assistant and not too bright. Daddy-O and Dranov are Healthcare PROFESSIONALS. Key word: PROFESSIONALS. They failed MM.

Neither of them picked up on "grooming" or "inappropriate behavior".


Listen, jackass, you can parse this all you want. No one knows exactly what McQueary saw, except for McQueary. If he saw Jer Bear doing something inappropriate, he should have intervened, at the very least pop his head in and ask what's going on. If he found the kid in distress, he should have removed him. If he didn't know enough to do that on his own, he's a ****ing cabbage.
 
So, it was okay for him to walk away, leaving the poor kid with a monster?

How would YOU determine JS was a monster in 2001? You're a trained child abuse expert?

You may be now, because of this sh1t storm, but I doubt you were in 2001. I know I wasn't until 2011/2012.

MM didn't know what to do. He called his dad. People who don't know what to do seek "advice" from people that do.

I would seek "advice" from Art regarding my finances, not vice versa
Art would seek my "advice" on how to get laid, not vice versa.

"Opinions" are people at the same level. "Suggestions" come from people beneath you.

MM sought advice. That advice was PISS FVCKING POOR.
 
ADVERTISEMENT