[Husker] What about McQuery?

Tue Jul 17 17:04:27 CDT 2012

Oh cite my references? LOL This reminds me of grad school.

It is on Page 67 of the Freeh report. First full paragraph. Here is what is
written.

McQueary testified that he called Paterno at home around 7:30 or 8:00 a.m.
the next morning and told him that he needed to meet with him. McQueary
recalled Paterno said he did not have a job for McQueary, so “if thatʹs
what itʹs about, donʹt bother coming over.” McQueary told him the matter
was “something much more serious” and Paterno agreed to a meeting. McQueary
went to Paterno’s home to talk, and according to his Grand Jury and trial
testimony, he told Paterno he saw Sandusky and “a young boy in the shower
and that it was way over the lines.” Recalling the activity as “extremely
sexual in nature,” McQueary described the “rough positioning” of Sandusky
and the boy “but not in very much detail”

It is not a quote of Paterno, but a quote by MM regarding what Paterno
said. The timeline of MM's employment is correct from a combination of Wiki
and the PSU website. To me this suggests there was a question of MM's
employment in February 2001 when he witnessed the incident. Or at least
that is what he told the investigators.

There are several conflicts of interest in the report. Child Protective
Services could not investigate the abuse because of their contracts with
Second Mile. That is why it was handled by Department of Welfare.

I think Freeh pulled punches when he couldn't prove something.

He put things in there that allude to "scandal" and then says things like
"there was no *evidence* to suggest" (I added the italics).

He does it on three occasions. 1) when the Department of Welfare worker
assigned to do the evaluation in 1998 gets hired two years later as a
consultant by PSU (this is the counselor who said JS did not demonstrate
behaviors associated with a pedophile and his report was instrumental
in having the case closed. I don't know what he based his opinion on. In my
professional opinion, he JS did show warning signs with his behavior and
his position. That has to be one of the all time bad calls), 2) When MM
gets hired as coach, and 3) When Second Mile is sold a plot of land by PSU
at cost shortly after Second Mild is informed about the 2001 incident
(coincidentally for almost the same exact amount of money as JS's
retirement settlement two years earlier).

On each of these occasions, Freeh goes into detail of the things leading up
to the hiring/sale, and then says but I can't prove there is anything wrong
with it.

I am not saying there is anything wrong/crooked/unethical. I do really
begin to wonder when it happens repeatedly in the report. He didn't have to
put in the report that the consultant got hired, nor did he have to put in
the part about the sale of the land. Neither were central to his
investigation. But he decided for some reason to include them.

Scott

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com>wrote:

> This is a very interesting post.  Scott, kind of out of nowhere,
> references a comment Paterno might have made about a job for McQueary when
> MM called to report the incident.  Scott writes it with the text of a
> direct quote from Paterno.  (Scott, do you have a reference and link for
> this quote?  I could not find it.) And then McQueary's employment timeline,
> and then talks about conflict of interest.  Not sure what the implication
> was or is or where Scott was trying to go with this.  Scott, could you
> explain?
>
> BTW, there was a footnote to this passage in the report:
> "McQueary was hired as a permanent football coach in 2004. The Special
> Investigative Counsel found no information to suggest that McQueary's
> selection for that job was related to his witnessing Sandusky assault a boy
> in the shower at the Lasch Building.  Three witnesses stated that McQueary
> was very well-qualified for the position."
>
> I'm pretty sure if Mr. Freeh had thought otherwise he would have said so.
> Dude doesn't know what it means to pull a punch.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Scott Stewart <fourtwophd at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> You know I think the whole thing is ugly, and there is enough blame to go
>> around.
>>
>> There was an interesting passage in the Freeh report. When MM called
>> Paterno to report the incident, Paterno's response was "If this has to do
>> with a job, don't bother. I don't have a job for you." MM then told him it
>> wasn't about a job.
>>
>> This implies that MM may have been looking for a job in 2001? However,
>> his career timeline shows him as GA from
>> 2000-2002; Administrative Assistent 2002-2004; and Coach 2004-2012.
>>
>> The conflicts of interest between Second Mile and Child Protective
>> Services, the attorney for PSU and Second Mile that was aware of all the
>> allegations, the Board of Second Mile that allowed JS to continue to have
>> access to children after they were informed...it just goes on and on.
>>
>> It just shows how hard easy it is for values to get lost in these
>> situations and how distorted things can get when money and power are
>> involved.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I see what you mean.  I've never had a problem with McQueary's actions,
>>> but
>>> I can understand those who do (sort of).  I just thought he took it to
>>> JP,
>>> who told him to tell his story to Spanier and Curley which he did.  And
>>> they told McQueary that they would handle it.  I think at that point MM
>>> thought he was out of the loop.  But I'm certain that as Paterno said
>>> "with
>>> the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more", McQueary probably
>>> thinks
>>> that too.  I'm sure he now wishes that he had thought to himself "Hey
>>> self,
>>> I turned this guy in to Joe Paterno, the athletic director, and the
>>> university president. They told me they would handle it, but I still see
>>> this guy around (on or off campus), with kids, and nothing seems like it
>>> has been done. I'm going to go ahead and call the cops."  It just doesn't
>>> feel realistic to me that he could have really done that, but I'm sure he
>>> wishes he did.  I think Mike McQueary is a stand-up guy who tried to
>>> stand-up and got played by these guys.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This lines up with the work atmosphere described by the janitors in the
>>> > Freeh.  There seems to be some kind of cult of personality surrounding
>>> > Paterno that mere peons dare not question.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I always thought that MM didn't go to police because he at the time
>>> he was
>>> >> a GA, very low and very young on the totem poll and he simply could
>>> not do
>>> >> that without Paterno's ok.  If Paterno had told him "pick up the
>>> phone and
>>> >> dial 911 immediately", that is exactly what he would have done.  He
>>> took
>>> >> it
>>> >> to the most powerful man at PS, both in the football program and the
>>> >> university itself.  This whole notion that Spanier, Curley, or anyone
>>> else
>>> >> was Paterno's "superior" or "boss" is nonsense.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dave
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Wolfson <awolfson0 at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > It should be clear from Scott's post that none of us have any
>>> business
>>> >> > speculating about why McQueary didn't go to the police, nor can we
>>> state
>>> >> > with certainty that we would have acted differently.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Aaron Wolfson
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> husker site list
>>> >> husker at tssi.com
>>> >> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> husker site list
>>> husker at tssi.com
>>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>>>
>>
>>
>