ADVERTISEMENT

McQueary vs PSU(BOT): Opening statements to be heard today (Monday, 10/17/2016)

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
37,770
50,547
1
News appears to have flown under the radar on NFL Sunday.

Whistleblower suit tied to Penn St. abuse case set for trial
ASSOCIATED PRESS (LINK)

BELLEFONTE, Pa. — A lawsuit by a former Penn State coach whose testimony helped convict fellow assistant Jerry Sandusky of being a sexually violent predator goes to trial Monday over allegations that the university defamed him and wrongly refused to renew his contract.

Mike McQueary, now 42, played quarterback at Penn State before becoming a member of Joe Paterno’s coaching staff.

But he became best known as the assistant who went to Paterno in 2001 to report seeing Sandusky, then a retiree with gym privileges, sexually molesting a boy in the team shower. Sandusky was not arrested until a decade later, leading to accusations of a high-level cover-up.

Nine women and three men were chosen for the jury last week. Both sides will make opening statements Monday.

McQueary was suspended with pay from the football program in 2011, when the first charges were brought in the case. Following Sandusky’s conviction in 2012 on charges of abusing 10 boys, McQueary learned he was effectively being terminated from his $140,000-a-year job.

He claims in his whistleblower lawsuit that he was retaliated against for helping prosecutors, wrongly misled by high-ranking administrators who first heard his story in 2001, and defamed.

His own role in the scandal has also drawn scrutiny because he did not physically intervene in the sexual assault of the boy, and because he didn’t go to the police.

McQueary went to Paterno’s home a day after the shower incident to discuss what he had seen. Paterno alerted Tim Curley, the athletic director at the time, and Gary Schultz, a vice president at the time, and McQueary met with both of them about a week later.

Paterno’s handling of the complaint was eventually cited by trustees as one of the reasons for his firing in late 2011. Paterno died a few months later.

In his lawsuit, which seeks more than $4 million, McQueary claims Curley and Schultz wrongly led him to believe that they considered it a serious matter and that they would respond appropriately.

As a result, the lawsuit claims, McQueary “has been labeled and branded as being part of a cover-up,” making it impossible for him to find work as a football coach.

He also claims he was defamed by a news release issued by Graham Spanier — Penn State president at the time — on the day Sandusky was charged, expressing full support for Curley and Schultz, who both had also been charged criminally for not reporting the abuse claim and other offenses.

The lawsuit says Spanier’s statement and comments he made a few days later to athletics staff “clearly suggest” McQueary had lied before a grand jury and to police. Spanier is also accused of failing to properly report suspected abuse and endangering children. He is awaiting trial.

It appears from court documents that neither Curley nor Schultz will answer any questions if called to testify in McQueary’s lawsuit. Both invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when attorneys sought to question them during the pretrial phase of the case.

Spanier has not said whether he would testify.

McQueary has already told his story to a grand jury, at a preliminary hearing and at Sandusky’s 2012 trial.

Sandusky, 72, is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence at a prison in southwestern Pennsylvania. He maintains his innocence.

During the Sandusky trial, McQueary gave this account on what he witnessed:

Entering the locker room, he heard showers running and “smacking sounds.” In a mirror, he saw Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall. He turned to see directly that Sandusky had his arms around the boy’s midsection, testifying it “was sexual, it was wrong, it was perverse.”

He became alarmed, flustered and shocked, slamming shut his locker. He then saw that Sandusky and the boy, estimated at ages 10 to 12, had become separated.

He did not say anything to Sandusky or the boy. Instead, he went to his office and called his father, who advised him to come to his home to convey what he had seen. Early the next day, he contacted Paterno.

Asked during the trial whether he called police, he replied that he felt that he had because Schultz had an oversight role with campus police as vice president for business and finance.

It was only an anonymous email sent to the district attorney in November 2010 that led investigators to first approach McQueary in the case.

Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts, including four that involved the shower encounter: indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children. He was acquitted of the most serious charge related to the incident McQueary witnessed, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

The identity of the boy, called Victim 2 in court records, remains in dispute. A man who said he was Victim 2 reached a settlement with the university, but the lead prosecutor at Sandusky’s trial said in court recently he does not believe he was the person McQueary saw in the shower.

The criminal case against Spanier, Curley and Schultz is still pending.

---------------

Headline almost looks like an intentional attempt to troll our beloved Illini friend @Nellie R who has worked so hard in the name of child welfare to teach newsrooms across the country that this is not a "Penn State abuse case," but rather a systemic failure by The Second Mile, Department of Public Welfare, Children & Youth Services, Central Mountain HS, Office of Attorney General, foster and adoption agencies, local judges (serving as Directors for TSM), etc... all of whom gave Jerry their seal of approval to continue doing what PSU told him not to do in 1998 (to steal a line from @WeR0206).
 
Last edited:
Sandusky was convicted of being a sexually violent predator? How is the word violent attached to his conviction? I think this is the first time I have seen it characterized this way. Is this the writer slanting the article?
 
McQueary won't and, IMO can't do the right thing. He is too raveled up in the self protection cocoon of the untruths he allowed to be perpetrated. Anyone with one bit of sense who reads the details about what went down would seriously question the intent of Mike McQueary in regards to not reporting this to the authorities. I would even go as far as saying that he was aided and abetted by his father and Dr. Dranov. The bottom line, IMO, is that Mike was afraid of putting the old kibosh on his coaching career. I find it interesting that during the time lapse between the "incident" and eventual shit storm in 2011that no one, including Mike, complained about anything to anyone re Sandusky! For gosh sake, if I saw a guy supposedly raping a young boy, I would intervene irregardless of the consequences. I would also continue to bitch loud and clear if I reported to upper level management about a real case of sexual assault. I would also not hang around Sandusky, play golf with him, etc. and would tell everyone what a disgusting person he was. Instead, we get years of silence, compromise, and surprise, surprise, a coaching job. Reading Bozeman's message, I truly believe some of the comments from McQueary acquaintances about his moral character. One thing you learn about people over time is that character change rarely occurs only if the situation puts enough pressure on the person. Well, in McQueary's world, the pressure is on for him to try and get a big payday and he sure as hell isnt going to fess up now! I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
 
McQueary won't and, IMO can't do the right thing. He is too raveled up in the self protection cocoon of the untruths he allowed to be perpetrated. Anyone with one bit of sense who reads the details about what went down would seriously question the intent of Mike McQueary in regards to not reporting this to the authorities. I would even go as far as saying that he was aided and abetted by his father and Dr. Dranov. The bottom line, IMO, is that Mike was afraid of putting the old kibosh on his coaching career. I find it interesting that during the time lapse between the "incident" and eventual shit storm in 2011that no one, including Mike, complained about anything to anyone re Sandusky! For gosh sake, if I saw a guy supposedly raping a young boy, I would intervene irregardless of the consequences. I would also continue to bitch loud and clear if I reported to upper level management about a real case of sexual assault. I would also not hang around Sandusky, play golf with him, etc. and would tell everyone what a disgusting person he was. Instead, we get years of silence, compromise, and surprise, surprise, a coaching job. Reading Bozeman's message, I truly believe some of the comments from McQueary acquaintances about his moral character. One thing you learn about people over time is that character change rarely occurs only if the situation puts enough pressure on the person. Well, in McQueary's world, the pressure is on for him to try and get a big payday and he sure as hell isnt going to fess up now! I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.


^^^ THIS ^^^ and another variable that I have never seen addressed is McQ's mental state, or lack of emotional distraught between the time lapse of the alleged incident and the shit-storm of Nov. 2011..... To explain.....

part 1. ... Let's give Mike the benefit of doubt. Let's say he is 100% absolutely honest, truthful and accurate in what he claims to have witnessed in 2001/2002. Let's say he witnessed Sandusky raping a little 10 year old boy in the Lasch showers.... OK

part 2. .... let's continue to play along and believe Mike in part 2. Let's take Mike at his word that he did not try to stop Sandusky that fateful night, but instead cow-tailed out to the parking lot, then to his house ... because he was too worked up and distraught over what he had just witnessed .... OK

So here is the thing that I believe I have never seen addressed by professional psychiatrists. If a person witnesses a horrific incident, and at the moment of witnessing that horrific incident they freeze up and do nothing .... Down the road would they not have some sort of post-traumatic guilt syndrome???? There have to be studies about people who are eye witnesses to horrific events (accidents, rapes, murders, assaults....) who freeze at the moment of the event, but then carry a sense of emotional guilt inside of them. I would think there are cases where people's lives are ruined because they can never get over the sense of guilt & remorse.

I find it almost impossible to believe that if a person witnesses such a horrific event, and they freeze up and do nothing at the moment of the event that they never experience any sort of psychological guilt, remorse, trauma.... that carries with them in the following years. And remember, the horrific event Mike claims to have witnessed may be the most horrific event a man can see happening to a little boy.

Yet, McQ displayed none of this. We are to believe that McQ witnessed this horrific event, and then was so well able to compartmentalize the event that he was able to:
keep working at Penn State and representing Penn State
keep visiting the Lasch building almost every day of his life
keep working out at Lasch and using the same showers at Lasch as the event
keep seeing Sandusky around town and around campus
keep seeing young boys attend Penn State camps
even play a round or two of golf with Sandusky

.... IMO, that is just the most amazing story of mental or emotional ability to compartmentalize in the history of humankind.
 
There are few things in life I am certain of (death and taxes being two of them), but I am SURE there was no rape in the showers that fatal evening in 2001 (2002?)! I won't revisit the numerous reasons people have already pointed out the past five years.

MM has his last opportunity to cleanse his conscience and help restore the legacy of the man who treated him like a son. Unfortunately that might adversely impact his big payday and we've already seen the true character of MM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJ65 and step.eng69
There are few things in life I am certain of (death and taxes being two of them), but I am SURE there was no rape in the showers that fatal evening in 2001 (2002?)! I won't revisit the numerous reasons people have already pointed out the past five years.

MM has his last opportunity to cleanse his conscience and help restore the legacy of the man who treated him like a son. Unfortunately that might adversely impact his big payday and we've already seen the true character of MM.

IMO the few million Mike is seeking (and in his best case scenario be awarded) is not enough to start a new life. Let's face it the "Mike McQuery" name is trash in Pennsylvania. What company or what school in PA would hire "Mike McQuery". I've seen reports that he is seeking $3-4 million. In these cases the person almost never gets what they are seeking. So let's say that Mike wins the case, gets some sort of settlement .... OK..... then what does he do?? Is he content to just reside in PA as an unemployed 40 year old ?? Does he take his settlement and move somewhere that the "McQuery" name is not instantly recognized? Again, he'd most likely never work. Once an employer or a school say in California or Florida realized that is THE "Mike McQuery", chances are they do not hire him. So does he more to Florida, retire at 40 and try to live off $3 million for the rest of his life? Even with $3 mil in the bank he is Centre County's most hated person not named Sandusky. So how good of a life does he have in Centre County even with $3 mil in the bank ??
 
keep visiting the Lasch building almost every day of his life
keep working out at Lasch and using the same showers at Lasch as the event

You make a valid point - continuing to visit the "scene of the crime". While I can't speak to Mike's mindset, my personal experience would have been not to continue to go there, unless significant change had been made.
 
Any chance Penn St can get Allan Myers to testify? Because we know he was the "victim" here, and we know nothing happened that night. I think Myers kind of owes Penn St a solid after all the money they gave him.

AM isn't relevant to this case, but I believe the Judge in the Sandusky PCRA (sp?) case has stated that AM and Sara Ganim will testify in that case. AM's counsel hid him away for the trial four years ago, and I believe the judge has indicated that will not be tolerated this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jansmuts
McQueary won't and, IMO can't do the right thing. He is too raveled up in the self protection cocoon of the untruths he allowed to be perpetrated. Anyone with one bit of sense who reads the details about what went down would seriously question the intent of Mike McQueary in regards to not reporting this to the authorities. I would even go as far as saying that he was aided and abetted by his father and Dr. Dranov. The bottom line, IMO, is that Mike was afraid of putting the old kibosh on his coaching career. I find it interesting that during the time lapse between the "incident" and eventual shit storm in 2011that no one, including Mike, complained about anything to anyone re Sandusky! For gosh sake, if I saw a guy supposedly raping a young boy, I would intervene irregardless of the consequences. I would also continue to bitch loud and clear if I reported to upper level management about a real case of sexual assault. I would also not hang around Sandusky, play golf with him, etc. and would tell everyone what a disgusting person he was. Instead, we get years of silence, compromise, and surprise, surprise, a coaching job. Reading Bozeman's message, I truly believe some of the comments from McQueary acquaintances about his moral character. One thing you learn about people over time is that character change rarely occurs only if the situation puts enough pressure on the person. Well, in McQueary's world, the pressure is on for him to try and get a big payday and he sure as hell isnt going to fess up now! I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Can you please elaborate more on MM motivation that night when speaking to Dranov and his dad.

I don't buy what you said. Why tell Joe anything, then?

You're painting YOUR own false narrative, btw. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and only adds to this sh1tstorm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Toddy_Too_Hotty
AM isn't relevant to this case, but I believe the Judge in the Sandusky PCRA (sp?) case has stated that AM and Sara Ganim will testify in that case. AM's counsel hid him away for the trial four years ago, and I believe the judge has indicated that will not be tolerated this time.

I guess that's true that he's not really relevant to this case. Maybe from a "there was nothing to blow the whistle about, so a whistleblower infraction doesn't apply" perspective. But Myers' testimony needs to be heard. Someone needs to ask him under oath what happened that night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
But Mike did say that he spoke to the police and the person in charge of the police....
I think in Mike's mind he did speak to the police. I have a feeling that as a player/student Gary Schultz was scene as the top cop. You can debate this on and on, but that doesn't matter, it only matters what Mike thought.
To that end, none of that is relevant to what is going on. What's relevant is how PSU treated Mike after he made his report. IMO pretty crappy, and retaliatory
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95 and AJ65
But Mike did say that he spoke to the police and the person in charge of the police....

I think that's a weasel way out. I dunno, I'm armchair quarterbacking......but Dr. Dranov could have picked up the receiver that evening, punched in the number for PSU Police & Public Safety and said "Mike - I'll walk you thru this". "You need to file a statement".

That never happened.
 
I think in Mike's mind he did speak to the police. I have a feeling that as a player/student Gary Schultz was scene as the top cop. You can debate this on and on, but that doesn't matter, it only matters what Mike thought.
To that end, none of that is relevant to what is going on. What's relevant is how PSU treated Mike after he made his report. IMO pretty crappy, and retaliatory
I think that is how he viewed Schultz as this hit the fan in 2011. However, his statement in 2011 stated that he spoke to the police and the person in charge of the police. If we infer that Schultz was in charge of the police, who were the other police that he references in the statement???
 
I think that is how he viewed Schultz as this hit the fan in 2011. However, his statement in 2011 stated that he spoke to the police and the person in charge of the police. If we infer that Schultz was in charge of the police, who were the other police that he references in the statement???
Harmon (sp?) I and many others think he is the key to all of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarasotan
I think that's a weasel way out. I dunno, I'm armchair quarterbacking......but Dr. Dranov could have picked up the receiver that evening, punched in the number for PSU Police & Public Safety and said "Mike - I'll walk you thru this". "You need to file a statement".

That never happened.
Everything is armchair quarterbacking at this point. And I will say this again and again....no one's actions (including Mike's) in 2001 are consistent with what Mike said in 2010-2016 about what he witnessed and told people.
 
Last edited:
IMO the few million Mike is seeking (and in his best case scenario be awarded) is not enough to start a new life. Let's face it the "Mike McQuery" name is trash in Pennsylvania. What company or what school in PA would hire "Mike McQuery". I've seen reports that he is seeking $3-4 million. In these cases the person almost never gets what they are seeking. So let's say that Mike wins the case, gets some sort of settlement .... OK..... then what does he do?? Is he content to just reside in PA as an unemployed 40 year old ?? Does he take his settlement and move somewhere that the "McQuery" name is not instantly recognized? Again, he'd most likely never work. Once an employer or a school say in California or Florida realized that is THE "Mike McQuery", chances are they do not hire him. So does he more to Florida, retire at 40 and try to live off $3 million for the rest of his life? Even with $3 mil in the bank he is Centre County's most hated person not named Sandusky. So how good of a life does he have in Centre County even with $3 mil in the bank ??
If his settlement is whittled down to half, say $2 mil, what is the attorney's take....40-50%, leaving a nest egg for retirement, not living income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jansmuts
If you weren't really sure what you saw, didn't have enough information to call the police, but still thought there was possibly a crime... you tell Joe to CYA.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Indeed. And I think everyone acted appropriately with the information they had.

The news outlets need to discuss Nifong's...er, I mean Fina's role in all this.
 
I may be one of the few who hopes MM does take the stand and tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth (whatever the truth really is). We need this whole saga to find a truthful conclusion and let the chips fall where they may, punish those responsible, and exonerate those who should be exonerated.
 
If you weren't really sure what you saw, didn't have enough information to call the police, but still thought there was possibly a crime... you tell Joe to CYA.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Why?

He was the only one in the locker room. He didn't have to talk to either his dad, Dranov or Joe "to cover his own arse". Nobody knew he was there.

Your stretch of the info at hand seems, well..."hinky."

 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Can you please elaborate more on MM motivation that night when speaking to Dranov and his dad.

I don't buy what you said. Why tell Joe anything, then?

You're painting YOUR own false narrative, btw. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and only adds to this sh1tstorm
I did elaborate about it, his desire to get on the coaching staff.
From an ESPN article:

At 7:30 the next morning, McQueary called Paterno at home. "I don't have a job for you, kid," Paterno blurted out. Two days earlier, PSU assistant coach Kenny Jackson had left for a job with the Steelers. So Paterno assumed that McQueary, still a graduate assistant, wanted to talk about filling the vacancy. When McQueary explained he had something urgent to tell Paterno, the coach invited him to his home.

So he knew about a possible job opening two days prior to his telling Joe about what he allegedly saw
 
I did elaborate about it, his desire to get on the coaching staff.
From an ESPN article:

At 7:30 the next morning, McQueary called Paterno at home. "I don't have a job for you, kid," Paterno blurted out. Two days earlier, PSU assistant coach Kenny Jackson had left for a job with the Steelers. So Paterno assumed that McQueary, still a graduate assistant, wanted to talk about filling the vacancy. When McQueary explained he had something urgent to tell Paterno, the coach invited him to his home.

So he knew about a possible job opening two days prior to his telling Joe about what he allegedly saw

Good for you. Getting your criminal news from a sporting news website
 
I did elaborate about it, his desire to get on the coaching staff.
From an ESPN article:

At 7:30 the next morning, McQueary called Paterno at home. "I don't have a job for you, kid," Paterno blurted out. Two days earlier, PSU assistant coach Kenny Jackson had left for a job with the Steelers. So Paterno assumed that McQueary, still a graduate assistant, wanted to talk about filling the vacancy. When McQueary explained he had something urgent to tell Paterno, the coach invited him to his home.

So he knew about a possible job opening two days prior to his telling Joe about what he allegedly saw
I don't follow your reasoning here. If MM was worried about his coaching career, why even bring this up to JVP, or his Dad or Dr. D? why not just shut up and go home? What was JS going to do, report him to JVP for not reporting on him (JS)?
 
Why?

He was the only one in the locker room. He didn't have to talk to either his dad, Dranov or Joe "to cover his own arse". Nobody knew he was there.

Your stretch of the info at hand seems, well..."hinky."

Not sure what info you think I am stretching.

He wasn't the only one in the locker room, there was also JS and AM. If AM ended up at the hospital or police station and mentioned seeing a giant red head who didn't help him... how long do you think it would have taken to figure out it was MM? How do you think that would have ended for MM? Hence the need for MM to CYA.

I'm not sure how you could not consider what I typed above, isn't it obvious?
 
Not sure what info you think I am stretching.

He wasn't the only one in the locker room, there was also JS and AM. If AM ended up at the hospital or police station and mentioned seeing a giant red head who didn't help him... how long do you think it would have taken to figure out it was MM? How do you think that would have ended for MM? Hence the need for MM to CYA.

I'm not sure how you could not consider what I typed above, isn't it obvious?
I thought JS testified he did not see MM in the locker room that night, we don't even know if AM was there that night. MM didn't need to do anything, he could always deny being there.
 
I don't follow your reasoning here. If MM was worried about his coaching career, why even bring this up to JVP, or his Dad or Dr. D? why not just shut up and go home? What was JS going to do, report him to JVP for not reporting on him (JS)?
His goal was to become a Division 1 head coach so when opportunity presents itself, what better place to be than PSU under Joepa. He also knew Joepa was a stickler for the rules so the underlying motivation to tell Joe is in the hopes that being a good soldier would get him further up the ladder. Why would Joe tell Mike when he called him he didn't have any jobs for him? To me that means McQueary had been lobbying for a job. And what probably concerned McQueary the most is that he allegedly saw Sandusky with a kid in the showers at 10 o'clock at night. What he really saw and reports are in contention and only he knows the truth. I think you cannot discount an underlying motivation here for job advancement as part of the equation. All this secretive stuff and calling his dad, etc. does not equate to me with seeing something heinous.
 
ADVERTISEMENT