In Defense Of Mike McQueary

Posted in the Columbus Forum

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#1 Nov 16, 2011
Part 1 OF 2

In Defense Of Penn State’s Mike McQueary
by Dan Abrams | ABC Legal Analyst
12:19 pm, November 15th, 2011

Note: This is a guest post by SportsGrid publisher and ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams. The opinions expressed in this piece are solely his.

Ask 100 random people who is most to blame for the child molestation scandal at Penn State, and I am guessing that after alleged pedophile Jerry Sandusky, you would probably get many if not most pointing the finger at “the guy who saw it but didn’t report it.” That guy: the now-much-despised and maligned Penn State coach Mike McQueary.

McQueary, currently on administrative leave from his job as a result of death threats, came out publicly late yesterday in an email to friends, saying,“I did the right thing.. the truth is not out there fully… I didn’t just turn and run… I made sure it stopped…” Whatever that means, exactly, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that McQueary has been scapegoated as the villain in this horrible story of alleged rape, predatory pedophilia and administrative misdeeds and inaction.

McQueary’s been called less than a human being. His continued employment by Penn State has been called “inappropriate to common decency.” Whenever I even mention McQueary’s name, the responses often evoke the sort of anger that might be reserved for an accomplice to the crime, or at least someone who did nothing at all after witnessing a child being attacked.

But that is not what happened here. Not even close. Not only did McQueary report what he saw, his testimony in front of the grand jury (deemed to be “extremely credible”) singelehandedly led to two Penn State officials being charged with perjury and failing to report the alleged crime. So why isn’t the primary focus, the scorn, on them?

Tim Curley, the former athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the university senior vice president who oversaw the campus police force, were found to be “not credible” and charged for denying McQueary told them a boy was being raped in the shower. Curley recalled the report from McQueary as just “horsing around,” while Schultz denied ever hearing about a crime, and even testified that the allegations he knew of were “not that serious.”

Those exact words from Curley,“horsing around,” have now become the lynchpin of the defense’s case. It is, after all, the exact language Sandusky and his lawyer used in an interview last night to describe and defend his conduct. Furthermore, Schultz knew about a previous report of Sandusky behaving inappropriately with boys from 1998. So why isn’t the outrage focused on them?
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#2 Nov 16, 2011
Part 2 of 2

McQueary, on the other hand, was described by Paterno as being “very upset” when he reported the incident and McQueary apparently echoed that sentiment to Curley and Schultz as well. According to the grand jury report, McQueary was assured in follow up meetings that the University was investigating, that Sandusky’s access to the locker room was immediately restricted, that he could not bring children on to the campus and his charity was informed of his conduct.

In retrospect, should McQueary have been satisfied with that? No way. Should he have done more? Yes. Could he have done more? Of course. Should he be celebrated as a hero because, as he put it, he “made sure it stopped?” No. But many have even suggested that McQueary is monstrous for having called his father for guidance before immediately reporting the incident. Is that really so hard to understand? A 28-year-old, so troubled by what he has seen in his workplace, that he calls his father for counsel?

According to the grand jury report,“[T]he graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno.” The next morning he called Paterno and even went to his home to report the horror he had witnessed. Exactly how Paterno characterized it to his superiors remains a source of debate, but the grand jury found that McQueary made it crystal clear that this was rape. Should McQueary have gone to police, particularly after no serious action was taken? Surely. But does that error in judgment really make him less than a human being, particularly in comparison to the others involved?

The legal and moral judgments are separate paths in a case like this. Just because McQueary did not violate the law does not mean that he is entitled to a clean bill of moral health. But am I the only one who has any pity for him–for the position he found himself in, for the hindsight demands the public has placed on him about exactly what he should have done and when he should have done it?

New reports of additional alleged victims must weigh heavily on him, as they should. But as Sandusky went public last night with his bizarre explanations and halting answer to the question of whether he is attracted to boys, I could not help but think it’s time to return the blame to those most deserving in a case with healthy servings to go around. After all, just as it seemed that McQueary could not be any more vilified, Sandusky’s lawyer accused McQueary from the other side, of lying about what he saw. McQueary can’t win and doesn’t deserve to, but amidst a sea of possible larger targets to hook, shouldn’t he be considered one of the smaller catches?

Dan Abrams is the legal analyst for ABC News, and publisher of the Abrams Media Network, which includes Mediaite, Gossip Cop, Geekosystem, Styleite, SportsGrid, The Mary Sue, and Mogulite.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#3 Nov 16, 2011
GlitterSucks

Canal Winchester, OH

#4 Nov 16, 2011
Thread # 6 to discuss the same old shit.

I don't care that you are sharing a new article (didn't read it BTW), do it on a current thread. There is not a thread that you can start that those of us that disagree with you will all of a sudden change our mind.
WhatEver

Hamilton, OH

#5 Nov 16, 2011
You can copy and paste every article written about this subject, heck, God himself could come down and tell me the same thing. I will not change my mind on this. You do not witness someone raping a child and not call the police!!!!!! You do not sit idle waiting for something to be done. When you see that actions are not taken, the person who witnessed the act should take those steps so that the child being abused voice is heard! And to hell with your 16%!
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#6 Nov 16, 2011
WhatEver wrote:
You can copy and paste every article written about this subject, heck, God himself could come down and tell me the same thing. I will not change my mind on this. You do not witness someone raping a child and not call the police!!!!!! You do not sit idle waiting for something to be done. When you see that actions are not taken, the person who witnessed the act should take those steps so that the child being abused voice is heard! And to hell with your 16%!
Listen to the audio below. Hysterical people like you are what railroaded a man causing him to spend 18 years in prison not only for a crime he didn't commit, but A CRIME THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

http://audio.weei.com/m/28348841/gerald-amira...

The same thing is going on here. Hysterical peasants acting irrationally.
GlitterSucks

Canal Winchester, OH

#7 Nov 16, 2011
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to the audio below. Hysterical people like you are what railroaded a man causing him to spend 18 years in prison not only for a crime he didn't commit, but A CRIME THAT NEVER HAPPENED!
http://audio.weei.com/m/28348841/gerald-amira...
The same thing is going on here. Hysterical peasants acting irrationally.
The only person acting hysterical and irrational is you.
Babs

Valley City, OH

#8 Nov 16, 2011
WhatEver wrote:
You can copy and paste every article written about this subject, heck, God himself could come down and tell me the same thing. I will not change my mind on this. You do not witness someone raping a child and not call the police!!!!!! You do not sit idle waiting for something to be done. When you see that actions are not taken, the person who witnessed the act should take those steps so that the child being abused voice is heard! And to hell with your 16%!
You say you would disobey God even if he told you to do this, but how can that be? Considering you are a special, always do right, punish the evil doers, but-in-ski, how could this possibly be? I am surprised at your lack of obedience in the face of "GOD". I wonder if he still smokes cigars, anyway, you better do what he says or Santa will be very angry with you and send the Easter Bunny to put turds under your pillow instead of the Tooth Fairy leaving you a shiny new nickel. Shame, shame, shame, and burn, burn, burn.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#9 Nov 16, 2011
Babs wrote:
<quoted text>You say you would disobey God even if he told you to do this, but how can that be? Considering you are a special, always do right, punish the evil doers, but-in-ski, how could this possibly be? I am surprised at your lack of obedience in the face of "GOD".
These self-righteous do-gooders in my experience are always the first people to stab you in the back.
GlitterSucks

Canal Winchester, OH

#10 Nov 16, 2011
Babs wrote:
<quoted text>You say you would disobey God even if he told you to do this, but how can that be? Considering you are a special, always do right, punish the evil doers, but-in-ski, how could this possibly be? I am surprised at your lack of obedience in the face of "GOD". I wonder if he still smokes cigars, anyway, you better do what he says or Santa will be very angry with you and send the Easter Bunny to put turds under your pillow instead of the Tooth Fairy leaving you a shiny new nickel. Shame, shame, shame, and burn, burn, burn.
Did you take your pills this morning or hide them in your mouth and spit them out?
Not hijab

Columbus, OH

#11 Nov 16, 2011
GlitterSucks wrote:
Thread # 6 to discuss the same old shit.
I don't care that you are sharing a new article (didn't read it BTW), do it on a current thread. There is not a thread that you can start that those of us that disagree with you will all of a sudden change our mind.
Glitter, I read it, and I have been following a lot of the TV coverage as well. Focus on McQueary is taking the heat off of some folks (assuredly Schultz and Curley--and very likely Paterno) who actually made decisions that essentially swept the crime under the rug. The article mentions follow-up meetings advising McQueary that there was an investigation and an immediate action to prevent Sandusky from bringing kids on campus--and notifying Second Chance.

McQueary is looking more and more like a small actor in this drama. We have to ask, had he made his first call to campus police, would the outcome have been any different? Remember that the 1998 investigation led nowhere. There is also some question about whether he has any protection as a whistle blower--which to my mind would be a demonstration of some moral fiber that is utterly missing in those above.

His first impulse, while possibly not the only or most effective choice, was not terrible. His biggest failing is that he trusted Paterno and the University. Clearly his willingness to give truthful (albeit potentially personally damaging) testimony to the Grand Jury (Curley, Schulz and Paterno are suspected of lying to the Grand Jury) looks to me like evidence of a commitment to doing the right thing--however late that might be.

Even witnesses who make reports to willing authorities lose control of how their report is used. Once a report is made to child protective services, for instance, everything happens behind a shroud of confidentiality. Even professionals who report never get a follow-up with regard to whether there was an investigation, what findings were and how the child will be protected.

I think we gotta ask--what further options were available to McQueary as time went on with clearly no meaningful action taken against Sandusky? A report to the real police might only result in a referral back to campus police due to jurisdiction. He might have called child protective services--but, they would be hampered by not having the name of a child. Maybe they would investigate, maybe not.

This is looking all the time more like a systemic failure than an individual one.

That doesn't mean that I agree with Bob that reporting is optional and that friends don't snitch on friends. I just think that the focus on McQueary is much too narrow.
Peasant

Galloway, OH

#12 Nov 16, 2011
Hey Bob, I just saw a bunch of cop cars and paramedics. Far west side. There might be a money maker for ya there.

No one here called McQueary "less than human" -- it's just been asserted that he was a coward and didn't experience any injustice by being removed from his job.
WhatEver

Hamilton, OH

#13 Nov 16, 2011
Babs wrote:
<quoted text>You say you would disobey God even if he told you to do this, but how can that be? Considering you are a special, always do right, punish the evil doers, but-in-ski, how could this possibly be? I am surprised at your lack of obedience in the face of "GOD". I wonder if he still smokes cigars, anyway, you better do what he says or Santa will be very angry with you and send the Easter Bunny to put turds under your pillow instead of the Tooth Fairy leaving you a shiny new nickel. Shame, shame, shame, and burn, burn, burn.
I am not an always do right, nor do I think I am better than anyone else. But that being said, I guess if the God I believe in will punish me for how I feel on this subject, well then, punish away. He isn't the God I believe in.

Oh, you must not have got the memo, Santa is NOT real!
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#14 Nov 16, 2011
Not hijab wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't mean that I agree with Bob that reporting is optional and that friends don't snitch on friends. I just think that the focus on McQueary is much too narrow.
You are the only other person (other than me, of course) who is being realistic about this matter.

We have a constitution, we have individual rights. You are not REQUIRED to do anything whatsoever unless the law mandates it. If you do anything, that means ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, you are doing over and above what is required. If he had simply written an anonymous letter, even that would have been more than what was required.

Bottom line is that this is an extreme example of what happens when you get involved, but it shows why people don't want to get involved. Instead of thanking him for intervening, the peasants want to second-guess and crucify these people.

And I don't blame Paterno, either. Like I said, he has better things to do than to play amateur investigator.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#15 Nov 16, 2011
Peasant wrote:
Hey Bob, I just saw a bunch of cop cars and paramedics. Far west side. There might be a money maker for ya there.
No one here called McQueary "less than human" -- it's just been asserted that he was a coward and didn't experience any injustice by being removed from his job.
I don't work a job like Paterno's, but my understanding is they work 14 hour days most of the time. I don't know about you, but when I'm busy with that kind of workload (which occasionally I have) that takes up most of my attention in the day. I have neither the time, nor the desire, nor is it any of my business to play amateur cop.

He fired Sandusky in 1998 (retired). This gets reported, he kicks it up the chain of command.

WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?

This is just media-driven hysterics, that's all that is .... A HIGH-TECH LYNCHING.
tip

United States

#16 Nov 16, 2011
"Campus police"? LOL. Everyone knows they're not the real thing. McQueary is without excuse.

Sandusky continued to rape boys for at least 7 years after the 2002 McQueary-witnessed incident. All of those at Penn State who knew of his child sex crimes failed to STOP him.

Listen...McQueary was subpoenaed by a Grand Jury. My guess is that, if not for the subpoena, he would have been happy to never have mentioned another word about this crime.

A good ole boys cover-up, to be sure.
All hail organizational image.
Peasant

Galloway, OH

#17 Nov 16, 2011
I don't get why Enzyte has to compare the removal of McQueary from his job to all kinds of injustices. Doesn't he get that when there's a scandal of this magnitude that the whole house usually gets flushed out? No one wants scum inside of an organization that needs to rebuilt itself. McQueary would only carry on the negative legacy of "don't tell" and of Sandusky.

McQueary is not guilty of a crime. What he is guilty of is not blowing the whistle when he had a perfect opportunity to do so -- when he personally witnessed a crime in progress, against a minor child. If he demonstrated such a lack of judgement, can an organization that must rebuild itself after such a horrendous situation trust him? Does he deserve a position of trust in that organization?

IMHO. These are the questions that must be asked. Not diverting attention onto cases that are well over 20 years old and calling your opponents "mindless" and "hysterical".
tip

United States

#18 Nov 16, 2011
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the only other person (other than me, of course) who is being realistic about this matter.
We have a constitution, we have individual rights. You are not REQUIRED to do anything whatsoever unless the law mandates it. If you do anything, that means ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, you are doing over and above what is required. If he had simply written an anonymous letter, even that would have been more than what was required.
Bottom line is that this is an extreme example of what happens when you get involved, but it shows why people don't want to get involved. Instead of thanking him for intervening, the peasants want to second-guess and crucify these people.
And I don't blame Paterno, either. Like I said, he has better things to do than to play amateur investigator.
It was a moral failure of epic proportion.
But I wouldn't expect you to recognize it.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#19 Nov 16, 2011
Put another way ...

You are the manager of the Wendy's at Hamilton and Refugee. Dave Thomas (I know, he's dead) gets caught in the stockroom raping an underling. The night shift manager catches him and because it's Dave it doesn't get reported to police. You tell your manager - he kicks it up the chain of command. Is it the manager's responsibility to keep pushing the issue?

NO!

Paterno is the manager of the football team.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#20 Nov 16, 2011
tip wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a moral failure of epic proportion.
But I wouldn't expect you to recognize it.
What about finding scapegoats to lynch, is that your idea of morality?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 8 min Duke for Mayor 31,486
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 11 min Duke for Mayor 6
Double standards for muslims, bending league rules 11 min BizzyBee 29
7mo prego couple seeking bi girl. 34 min Obama is Bush wit... 8
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 1 hr Old Timer 958
Early Voting VICTORY for Ohio! 1 hr Duke for Mayor 24
The Political Nazi's are at it again! 1 hr Duke for Mayor 78
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 2 hr Duke for Mayor 385
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 4 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 3,544

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]