[Husker] What about McQuery?

[Tim Silvey]

I disagree! We know, from his testimony, what he heard and what he saw! We also know what he did after and what he didn't do.  None of it matters because the piece of crap left the locker room and left that little boy alone with that monster.  
I know exactly what I would have done.  I would have went in there and removed that child from the locker room.  If Sandusky made it out alive, well, so beit.

I have a 13 yo son.  He attends football and basketball camps.  I know what I would have done and if any of you don't, I suppose you should do some self examination.


"Not the victory but the action.
  Not the goal but the game.
   In the deed the glory."


--- On Mon, 7/16/12, Aaron Wolfson <awolfson0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aaron Wolfson <awolfson0 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Husker] What about McQuery?
> To: "Andrew Smith" <arossman at earthlink.net>
> Cc: "husker at tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
> Date: Monday, July 16, 2012, 10:01 PM
> 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
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Andrew Smith <arossman at earthlink.net>wrote:
> 
> > I'd agree with your points if this was equivalent to
> exposing an employer
> > who passes of sugar water as apple juice (i.e.,
> whistle-blowing and a
> > lesser crime), but it's neither.
> >
> > We're not talking about passing off sugar water as
> apple juice - we're
> > talking about rape of a child. And whistle blowing is
> when you report
> > illegal or unethical conduct by and approved of within
> an organization you
> > work for.  So though I understand the
> similarities, we are not really
> > talking about whistle-blowing unless one believes child
> rape was approved
> > of by the PSU organization - we are talking about an
> individual, not an
> > organization, raping a child.  I don't see where
> thinking that the police
> > would come in and "clean house" is relevant unless
> again, one believes
> > child rape was part of the PSU organization.
> >
> > I agree that in some cases (not this one) reporting a
> crime is not always
> > easy.  One point of my "what have we learned?"
> letter is that how society
> > discusses crimes, can negatively affect how people
> respond to them.
> >
> > I do not believe the whistle-blower related fears you
> mention are the
> > reasons McQuery did not contact the police.  As a
> graduate assistant
> > informing on a defensive coordinator, he was already
> risking repercussions.
> >  I believe McQuery did not contact the police
> because he viewed Sandusky as
> > part of the football program, then the university, and
> then society. As a
> > result, he treated a heinous crime against society as
> though it was merely
> > a crime against the football program.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/12/2012 10:10 PM, Smith, William wrote:
> >
> >> Whistle-blowing, reporting illegal or unethical
> conduct to outside
> >> authorities, is one of the riskiest moves any
> employee can undertake.
> >> There are countless examples (my favorite is Jerome
> LiCari, the scientist
> >> at Beech-Nut who discovered his employer was
> passing off sugar water as
> >> apple juice) where someone has seen, could even
> prove, that criminal
> >> activity was taking place in an organization, yet
> when the cat is out of
> >> the bag, it is the whistleblower that quickly
> becomes the target of the
> >> investigation.  What exactly do you
> know?  How long did you know it?  What
> >> proof do you have?  Why didn't you report your
> suspicions earlier?  What
> >> are you personal motives in coming forward at this
> time?  What
> >> transgressions might you be hiding?  Even when
> the whistle-blower can
> >> prove his/her case, future employability in the
> industry will be seriously
> >> compromised.
> >>
> >> Further, even though it's tempting to think the
> police, the IRS, SEC, EPA,
> >> FDA, highway patrol, whoever will come in and
> "clean house", there's no
> >> guarantee of such.  Who's to say they are
> always on the side of right and
> >> good?  In some instances aren't they in bed
> with the accused, part of a
> >> sophisticated network of enablers?  (I'm going
> out on a huge limb here,
> >> but I'll wager the Central Pennsylvania police,
> especially with no
> >> corroborating evidence early on, are going to tread
> very very carefully
> >> when it comes to matters involving "allegations"
> against the Penn State
> >> athletic program.  That is, they will actually
> be inclined to be part of
> >> the "damage control" response.)
> >>
> >> I admit I know very little about this case (what
> the media wants to tell
> >> me, and that is always open to suspicion), but it
> makes a lot of sense why
> >> Michael McQuery did not go to the police.  It
> seems sickenly indifferent
> >> in retrospect, but there are very good reasons why
> modern organizations
> >> demand, and almost always get, loyalty from their
> employees.
> >>
> >> Bill Smith
> >> Towson, MD
> >>
> >> On 7/12/12 9:25 PM, "Andrew Smith" <arossman at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  ... this was a conspiracy among the
> president, vice-president,
> >>>> athletic director, and head football coach
> to 1. cover up the crimes
> >>>> of a child molester, and 2. allow the child
> molester to continue to
> >>>> molest children for 14 years.
> >>>>
> >>> What I've never understood (actually, I
> understand why but disagree with
> >>> it) is the treatment of Mike McQuery compared
> to Paterno, Curley, etc.
> >>> McQuery is the one who actually witnessed a
> rape, yet it seems did not
> >>> contact the police and then when no action was
> taken against Sandusky,
> >>> did nothing for several years.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And below are my thoughts in response to an
> article which suggested this
> >>> was a sports problem and asked "what have we
> learned?".
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that society (including the
> media) sees college athletes
> >>> and coaches as members of a team first, then
> the university, and only
> >>> then as a member of society. When crimes are
> discovered, the first
> >>> question raised is "what did the coach do?",
> followed by "what did the
> >>> university do?", and much later if at all "what
> did the police do?". It
> >>> should be no surprise then that people do not
> go to the police when they
> >>> should.
> >>>
> >>> For example, in the Sandusky case more blame
> for not calling the police
> >>> is placed on those who were told of Sandusky's
> behavior (Joe Paterno and
> >>> his bosses) than on the person who actually
> witnessed them (Mike
> >>> McQuery) simply because they are higher in the
> athletic chain-of command.
> >>>
> >>> This is not just a sports problem. We saw a
> similar tragedy in how
> >>> abusive priests were handled. Society
> encourages people to decide whom
> >>> to inform, not based on the nature of the
> crime, but on the group to
> >>> which a perpetrator belongs.
> >>>
> >>> The lesson we should learn is simple ­ let the
> nature of the crime guide
> >>> who you inform, not the perpetrator¹s
> membership. If you suspect someone
> >>> of abusing children, you do not go to the
> coach, church, or anywhere
> >>> other than the police.
> >>>
> >>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> >>> husker site list
> >>> husker at tssi.com
> >>> http://romaine.tssi.com/**mailman/listinfo/husker<http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/**mailman/listinfo/husker<http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>