Yesterday, Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News, who has been lauded by her stellar coverage of the PSU scandal, wrote an article that in part stated the following:
The Patriot-News viewed the handwritten witness statement that McQueary gave after he was found by agents with the state attorney general’s office in 2010. The Patriot-News verified it through a source close to the investigation.Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Consistent With Grand Jury Indictment
His statement is two pages long, and it makes no mention of McQueary making a statement to police. It says nothing about stopping the assault. It is very similar to the account summarized in the 23-page grand jury presentment.
McQueary wrote that he hastily left the locker room after allegedly seeing a boy about 10 years old being sodomized by Sandusky. Sandusky and the boy saw him, he wrote, but he doesn’t think he would recognize the boy today.
The whole thing lasted about a minute, he wrote.
Neither campus nor borough police received reports from McQueary about an alleged sexual assault in 2002, the departments said Wednesday.
State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department. Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.
|Like Watching a Car Crash|
No mention of stopping the incident is stated or suggested in the Indictment, or in McQueary's 2010 handwritten statement.
Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Inconsistent With McQueary's Recent E-Mail
McQueary's recent e-mail, the full text of which may be found Here, states that he "had discussions" with the police about the 2002 shower incident.
So, what is going on here?
Why Would Mike McQueary Lie?
One theory: McQueary knows that Sandusky is not going to admit he was raping the boy, who so far has not been identified and who so far has apparently not come forward. He figures that the boy is not going to come forward. So, he can engage in some reputation restoration by claiming he stopped the assault, without risk that he will ever be contradicted.
Bad approach, Mike, for numerous reasons.
One, in saying what you said, you should have known that you were implicitly contradicting the Grand Jury; given that the Pennsylvania Attorney General is in charge of the case, that's akin to tugging on Superman's cape.
Two, by saying what you said, you cast the entire Indictment into doubt. Where a star witness, the most important witness for the prosecution, does that, it increases the likelihood that the alleged perpetrator will gain an acquittal.
Three, what happens if the victim comes forward, and disagrees with your account. In addition to the major hit to your reputation, such would be devastating to your credibility before a jury at trial (see point two, above).
|Thanks to McQueary, Off Media Radar - For now|
|Spanier: Now Supporting From a Distance|
|The Right Thing, Dad?|
|E-Mail Can Be Hazardous|