Upstate
Co 2020 Cali Winner, Rcd/Rcpts/TD Rcpts (5)/TFL
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 7,710
- Like
- 5,216
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
Mcquery to Team in E-Mail:
- Thread starter Upstate
- Start date
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
PeterAlexander Peter Alexander
Upstate
Co 2020 Cali Winner, Rcd/Rcpts/TD Rcpts (5)/TFL
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 7,710
- Like
- 5,216
$#!^ meet fan.
RockCenterNBC Rock Center
BREAKING: "I'm innocent of these charges" Jerry Sandusky tells Bob Costas in exclusive interview airing tonight 10p/9c NBC#RockCenter
RockCenterNBC Rock Center
BREAKING: "I'm innocent of these charges" Jerry Sandusky tells Bob Costas in exclusive interview airing tonight 10p/9c NBC
JJReddawg
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,635
- Like
- 7,640
He testified to the grand jury......years later. Good for you douche bag.
I myself generally avoid confrontations, but I would have beaten the stuff out of Sandusky right then and there.
bnoro
Lurker
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 11,353
- Like
- 33,196
What does twitter have to do with that? It could have been reported in an article with the same effect.
PeteCalvin
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,769
- Like
- 11,686
$#!^ meet fan.
RockCenterNBC Rock Center
BREAKING: "I'm innocent of these charges" Jerry Sandusky tells Bob Costas in exclusive interview airing tonight 10p/9c NBC#RockCenter
Why would he put himself on national TV like this? Is he THAT sick in the head or that damn arrogant? How can he deny his guilt at this point when people have actually seen him in the act of an assault? What's his defense going to be? A conspiracy against him? Puh-leeze, Jerry. Costas should punch him on air.
TinyManInside
Our only goal will be the western shores.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,794
- Like
- 9,582
If you read the Penn State boards, there are still a lot of delusional idiots who think this is all a set-up or extortion.
NKR1978
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 20,254
- Like
- 39,847
Let's not attack the guy who testified to the grand jury that he froze and ran away and called his daddy when he saw an old man butt rape a 10 year old boy?
He hasn't been attacked enough.
MadNY3
All American
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,116
- Like
- 13,767
Let's just say I will continue to attack McQueary. Frequently.
cusestudent
2nd String
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 675
- Like
- 116
The entire country has attacked Joe Pa, but McQueary has not been attacked at all. He's the one that saw the acts, for God's sake, he would have had the best shot at going to the police and getting something done because he actually witnessed what was going on! McQueary should be burning in hell with Paterno right now.
I really don't think people realize the power structure that is at psu. I don't know if McQueary stopped the rape or not but if he did and then went to his father and then was bought off or threatened by the powers to be, I agree he should have done the right thing but it's a cult like atmosphere there and a very small town, maybe he was scared for his own life? I'm not defending him because we don't know the whole story but things just don't seem to be adding up here and until you live in another mans shoes you really don't know what he's going through.
All4SU
Duos Cultores Scientia Coronat et Go Aureum
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14,759
- Like
- 26,514
It's a little like sexual harassment situations. You have to consider who has the power and who doesn't. McQueary, as a GA, witnessing Sandusky raping a kid, would be like walking in on your boss doing the same thing. Was McQueary wrong in not beating the #$@% out of Sandusky? Of course. But at the same time, there were going to be consequences for McQueary either way. Like never working at PSU. He was spineless and acted selfishly.
Paterno, on the other hand, had all of the power. He could have called the cops. Told the AD that he already called the cops. Or at least, made things happen instantly right up to the BOT to see that law enforcement was brought in. He didn't. And we still don't know why he didn't. Friendship? Loyalty? A selfish and misguided desire to protect the image of PSU? Sandusky have blackmail material on JoPa? We don't know.
Both were in the wrong. But in different ways. Paterno had more power though.
But in my opinion, both have been denounced pretty equally. I think you're wrong when you say McQueary hasn't been attacked. You must not read these boards.
Avatusstone28
Walk On
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 249
- Like
- 36
He should have dragged the guy off the kid and brought him to safety, to start with.
Scooch
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 17,065
- Like
- 56,913
I'm not sure you understand the definition of "at all".
Chip
Creature of Bad Habits
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 29,008
- Like
- 78,537
Or if he has a TV or radio. If no one attacked McQuery at all, he would have been on the sideline Saturday instead of bunkered away with Henry Hill on Admin Leave.
pfister1
2023-24 Iggy Winner ACC & OOC Record
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,983
- Like
- 15,117
On the subject of what McQueary did that night; we don't really know as we haven't seen/heard his testimony only the Presentment. The Presentment is not testimony or a transcript of testimony but rather the Grand Jury's findings based on the testimony before it. The "facts" found may be an amalgamation of conflicting testimony from several sources. The Presentment may have omitted pertinent facts testified to by McQueary that the Grand Jury didn't consider relevant to its purpose; making a finding with respect to the actions of Sandusky and the actions of administrators at PSU that didn't report the incident to authorities.
In other words its possible that McQueary testified that he stayed there until the boy left the showers before leaving to go home and call his father, and while relevant to everyone's perception of how McQueary handled the situation it had little to do with what the Grand Jury was evaluating, so it might not have made it into the Presentment.
I saw a CNN article this afternoon that gets into the reasons why McQueary may be saying that the presentment understates his response. It is an interesting question.
"In an e-mail to former teammates on Monday, McQueary implies the presentment vastly understates his response: "I didn't just turn and run. I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick, tough decisions." His e-mail doesn't specify how he stopped the act, but this account appears to contradict the grand jury's findings of fact, which say that McQueary "left immediately, distraught" after seeing the boy being assaulted. The findings of fact make no reference to McQueary in any way trying to stop the assault.
There are at least two explanations for the discrepancy.
The first is that McQueary is simply lying in his e-mail, which was not made not under oath and thus poses no risk of perjury, in order to rehabilitate his image. McQueary, who Penn State has placed on administrative leave and who has received death threats, may believe that he needs to tell a different story in public in order to save his career.
While this explanation is possible, McQueary likely wouldn't e-mail lies because now the grand jury may be inclined to go back and revisit McQueary's sworn testimony and ask him to testify again. Recall that Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz have been charged with perjury for knowingly lying to the grand jury. Also, should he eventually testify in Sandusky's trial, McQueary would be again under oath and would have to explain why his grand jury testimony and e-mail proclamations are at odds.
A second and more exonerating explanation concerns the information-gathering function of the grand jury. The grand jury's investigation is focused primarily on alleged sex crimes committed by Sandusky and not the roles played by others in failing to stop those crimes. Questions posed to McQueary, Paterno and others in the grand jury proceedings have been framed to elicit the most amount of information about Sandusky and his alleged victims, and no one else. The findings of fact thus retell what happened from the current vantage point of jurors who have been charged with looking into possible sex crimes committed by Sandusky.
In contrast, if the investigation had centered on McQueary, he likely would have been asked differently worded questions. In answering the questions he received, McQueary may have omitted details that could have enhanced his image, but were not directly relevant to the question being asked."
In other words its possible that McQueary testified that he stayed there until the boy left the showers before leaving to go home and call his father, and while relevant to everyone's perception of how McQueary handled the situation it had little to do with what the Grand Jury was evaluating, so it might not have made it into the Presentment.
I saw a CNN article this afternoon that gets into the reasons why McQueary may be saying that the presentment understates his response. It is an interesting question.
"In an e-mail to former teammates on Monday, McQueary implies the presentment vastly understates his response: "I didn't just turn and run. I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick, tough decisions." His e-mail doesn't specify how he stopped the act, but this account appears to contradict the grand jury's findings of fact, which say that McQueary "left immediately, distraught" after seeing the boy being assaulted. The findings of fact make no reference to McQueary in any way trying to stop the assault.
There are at least two explanations for the discrepancy.
The first is that McQueary is simply lying in his e-mail, which was not made not under oath and thus poses no risk of perjury, in order to rehabilitate his image. McQueary, who Penn State has placed on administrative leave and who has received death threats, may believe that he needs to tell a different story in public in order to save his career.
While this explanation is possible, McQueary likely wouldn't e-mail lies because now the grand jury may be inclined to go back and revisit McQueary's sworn testimony and ask him to testify again. Recall that Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former senior vice president of business and finance Gary Schultz have been charged with perjury for knowingly lying to the grand jury. Also, should he eventually testify in Sandusky's trial, McQueary would be again under oath and would have to explain why his grand jury testimony and e-mail proclamations are at odds.
A second and more exonerating explanation concerns the information-gathering function of the grand jury. The grand jury's investigation is focused primarily on alleged sex crimes committed by Sandusky and not the roles played by others in failing to stop those crimes. Questions posed to McQueary, Paterno and others in the grand jury proceedings have been framed to elicit the most amount of information about Sandusky and his alleged victims, and no one else. The findings of fact thus retell what happened from the current vantage point of jurors who have been charged with looking into possible sex crimes committed by Sandusky.
In contrast, if the investigation had centered on McQueary, he likely would have been asked differently worded questions. In answering the questions he received, McQueary may have omitted details that could have enhanced his image, but were not directly relevant to the question being asked."
cusestudent
2nd String
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 675
- Like
- 116
Well not in the sense of the people online, but the media really hasn't said that much about McQeary until the past few days. I was more or less commenting on the way the media handled both situations, but then again the media loves overkill on the subject of higher popularity.
Scooch
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 17,065
- Like
- 56,913
Well a lot of people in the "media" I was listening to last week we're crushing the guy for being a gutless coward. I guess your mileage varied.
strumpfasaurus
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 707
- Like
- 441
I made a thread about this earlier and I would like to state it here as well.
We had a forensic psychologist phd come into my class today who specializes in sexual predator cases. He said that in the case of Mcquery that as much as all of us would love to say that we would have to kicked Sandusky's a** or gone straight to the police most of in reality would have done exactly what he did, in going to the direct authority figure or contacting a parent. I am in no way excusing Mcquery of what he did or didn't do but just saying what an expert of stuff like this told my class.
We had a forensic psychologist phd come into my class today who specializes in sexual predator cases. He said that in the case of Mcquery that as much as all of us would love to say that we would have to kicked Sandusky's a** or gone straight to the police most of in reality would have done exactly what he did, in going to the direct authority figure or contacting a parent. I am in no way excusing Mcquery of what he did or didn't do but just saying what an expert of stuff like this told my class.
