Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pfister1, post: 76431, member: 285"] 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." [LEFT][COLOR=#000000]Read more: [URL='http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/15/sandusky.legal/index.html#ixzz1doCzmYpu'][COLOR=#003399]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/15/sandusky.legal/index.html#ixzz1doCzmYpu[/COLOR][/URL][/COLOR][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?