Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Did McQueary Speak With Police About 2002 Shower Incident? Did Police Fail to Investigate the 2002 Shower Incident at Penn State?

Penn State's Mike McQueary Claims He Stopped Rape and Later Spoke to Police and Child Protection

On November 15, portions of a recent e-mail from McQueary was published wherein he stated that he stopped the rape before he left the building. Subsequent news reports suggest that, in his e-mail, McQueary also stated that he talked to the police about the incident.

NOTE:  Later, the full e-mail was released and it does include both statements. 

Click Here for full text of McQueary E-Mail
 If what McQueary says is true, two thoughts come to mind: 1) if McQueary said that to the Grand Jury, its Indictment should have said so. Instead, it states that after making eye contact with the victim and Sandusky, McQueary "left immediately, distraught." and, 2) the police have some serious questions to answer.

If Mike McQueary Proves His Story, Then the Police Are Facing Massive Lawsuit

There is no debate that in 1998, the police conducted an extensive investigation following a report concerning Jerry Sandusky's alleged sexually inappropriate dalliances with a young boy.  Ultimately, the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case.

Why Are There No Records of McQueary's Alleged Conversation?
Up until yesterday, there has been no suggestion that the police were ever informed about the March 2002 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.  The Indictment certainly contradicts such a claim.  Indeed, based upon the Indictment, McQueary, and others, have been almost universally condemned for, among other things, failing to report this incident to the police.  Implicit in that condemnation is the belief that, given the seriousness of what McQueary witnessed, and the 1998 investigation, a mere report to the police would have resulted in the arrest of Sandusky, and the end of his vicious pattern of alleged sexual abuse.

Is There More Here Than Meets the Eye?

The Indictment makes clear that the Grand Jury found that neither McQueary nor anyone else at PSU spoke to the police about the 2002 incident.  It states further that police records were subpoenaed, and no report or information concerning the 2002 incident was produced.

 NOTE:  The Indictment indicates that numerous PSU officials (Schultz, Curley and Spanier) testified that they informed the child protection agency about the incident.  The Indictment indicates that Department of Welfare records were subpoenaed, and no report or information about the 2002 incident was produced.  There will surely be more on this going forward.  Query:  If the Grand Jury believed that the PSU officials were lying when they claimed they spoke with child protection officials about the 2002 incident (an assumption that seems to naturally arise given the absence of any records of such reports), then why weren't they indicted for that perjurious testimony?  Cound it be that the Grand Jury was skeptical of the "no records" response from the Department of Welfare?  Certainly an issue that bears watching...

McQueary - Lying, Misremembering? Or is Something Else Going on?
Now, McQueary has said he did speak to the police about the 2002 incident.  If the police were in fact notified of the 2002 incident, this incredible drama may take a turn in a whole new direction - one that is sure to include a massive lawsuit against the police by all those who suffered abuse subsequent to March 2002.

What if McQueary Is Not Telling the Truth?

Having listened to McQueary, and to some of his acquaintances, he seems like a stand-up guy.  You can be sure, though, that he just painted a bulls' eye on his back (and chest, head...) where local police are involved.  The police will be out to prove that McQueary is lying about speaking with them about this incident.  If, indeed, McQueary is not telling the truth about speaking with the police, well, this whole situation will explode beyond nearly anything we have ever seen in legal circles.  It is interesting, too, that this e-mail appears to have been "written to leak," raising an interesting question.  Were the lawyers McQueary met with last week behind the e-mail?  Or is McQueary a "lawyer's nightmare," a client that takes critical action without first seeking legal advice.

Joe Amendola - Might Want to Watch Litigating in Press, Joe
For instance, Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, is reportedly saying that he believes he found the heretofore unidentified boy in the shower, and that the boy is clear in stating that he was not raped that night.  Since there are only 2 people who know for sure the identity of the boy in question, Sandusky being one, one must assume that Sandusky's lawyer spoke to the right person (and if was willing to speak to the lawyer for his alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim is either highly confused/distraught or wasn't a rape victim).  Sandusky (incredibly) went on TV the other night and told Bob Costas that he and the boy were merely playing around in the shower that night

Mere Naked Horseplay in Shower With 10 year-old?
Can you imagine if McQueary didn't talk to the police as he claims, and if indeed the boy in the shower surfaces and says he was not anally raped that night?

Another possible problem for McQueary is now on the horizon, to wit: McQueary's claim is sure to stir ire against the police, and they may pursue McQueary civilly (for libel) if his e-mail is false.

Oh boy, is all I can say.

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.
McQueary - Is he Lying, Misremembering? Or Is Something Else Going On?

No comments: