Friday, November 18, 2011

McQueary and Police in Fight to Death

In 2010, Mike McQueary Wrote a Handwritten Statement About the 2002 Shower Incident

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.

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.
Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Consistent With Grand Jury Indictment

These statements are consistent with the summary of McQueary's testimony before the Grand Jury contained in its Indictment. The Indictment explicitly states that a subpoena issued to the police during the investigation seeking any and all records relating to the 2002 shower episode resulted in the production of no records.
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.  Yesterday, the police denied having ever received a report from McQueary in 2002 (which, in fairness to McQueary, does not squarely address his claim that he had discussions with the police about the 2002 incident).  Now, the handwritten statement seems to tip the  credibility scales in favor of the police, and against Mike McQueary.

So, what is going on here?

Why Would Mike McQueary Lie?

Reputation restoration. 

Sandusky:  Praying That McQueary Keeps Talking

Yet, doing so in this fashion is extremely risky and dangerous, particularly given the seriousness of the incidents at issue, and the fact that the eyes of the World (friends of mine in Italy and Great Britain said the PSU scandal was front page news all of last week) are upon you.  Here is why.

McQueary has pitted himself against the police in a do or die struggle that, at least from the police department's perspective, could have millions of dollars of ramifications.


PSU Police: Out To Prove McQueary Lying

If the police were in March/April 2002 (the shower incident took place on a Friday night at around 9:30 p.m. in March 2002) made aware of the explicit rape allegations recounted by McQueary to the Grand Jury, and did nothing, than any Sandusky victims abused subsequent to that time will have a strong argument that the police are civilly liable to them for damages.  Big damages.

If McQueary is proved to be lying about talking to the police, what do you think that will do to McQueary's credibility in front of a jury.  Sandusky's lawyer is licking his chops.

And, so, McQueary - star witness for the prosecution - has now created a prime time battle for credibility between he and the prosecution.  This can only help the defense, whether McQueary or the police are lying, but it particularly helps the defense if McQueary is lying - which right now appears to be the case. 

McQueary's e-mail is the latest in a series of stupefying gaffes by the characters in this drama.  Here are some of the most startling such gaffes:

Spanier:  Long Distance Support...

1. PSU President Graham Spanier pledges "unconditional support" to two high ranking PSU officials indicted for perjury and failure to report sex crimes against children. He is fired days later.

What Did Joe Know?

2. Joe Paterno claims he would have done more if he had known that the boy was being sodomized, suggesting that he did "what he was supposed to" by reporting to his superiors what he understood to be mere sexual  horseplay by a naked Jerry Sandusky and a 10 year-old boy in the PSU showers, and never following up with anyone about the incident ever again. He is fired days later.

Ignoring Assault Not Right Thing, Dad
 3. John McQueary, Mike's father, said Mike did what he was supposed to in 2002, thereby blessing his son's decision to high-tail it out of the locker room after he witnessed the rape without intervening to stop it. In making his statement, father McQueary also blessed his own actions, which consisted of encouraging his son to flee after receiving a call from him moments after he had witnessed the assault.

Scott - We're Skeptical
4. Scott Paterno, JoePa's lawyer son, said that Joe did not know about the intense, prolonged 1998 investigation by PSU Police into another shower molestation charge against Sandusky.

5. Scott also claims that Sandusky's sudden and surprising resignation had nothing to do with the 1998 investigation. He has since gone radio silent.

Dangerous E-Mails Ahead

6. Mike McQueary sends e-mail (which appeared to be intended for leak) saying he stopped assault and that he spoke to police about 2002 incident, statements contradicted by Grand Jury Indictment, police and McQueary's own handwritten statement issued the prior year. Now he is on administrative leave, firing  imminent.

Careful, Joe
7.  Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola tells media he has found the 10 year-old boy in the shower, and the boy denies he was raped.  WOW.  If I had such a star witness (whose identity is unknown to all except Sandusky), I think I would keep under wraps.  And, hoo boy, I would not say or even suggest that unless I knew for sure it was in the bag.  We'll see.

Sad, sad situation.

Click Here to read why McQueary's Risky e-mail gambit may trip him up - big time.

No comments: