Slogging through the Mike McQueary testimony and the cross-examination of Karl Rominger is tedious going. I can't quite decide which is worse - McQueary's obfuscation and sometimes obvious evasion - pretending he doesn't understand the question OR Rominger's bizarre seemingly purposeful ineptitude and lack of focus.
MIke McQueary is actually going to get a pretty hefty paycheck for his part in this - How can it be that this guy who messed this up in every conceivable fashion be believed and rewarded while good and decent accomplished men like Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Dr. Graham Spanier are damaged and defiled because of Mike's inability to deal with a situation and tell the consistent truth?
This exchange around page 284 is a case in point.
McQueary has made such a big deal out of his insistence he "stopped" whatever was happening yet in his grand jury account - being read by Rominger he says
"so I just didn't do anything to stop it".
I mean WOW - Here we have an admitted contradiction under oath and what does Rominger do? Instead of driving it home he then switches immediately to a different subject.
Mike McQueary comes off as a person who has told so many stories about those 2 or 3 slapping sounds, 1 or 2 second glances - and how he stopped IT - whatever this IT was he has been coached to enhance in his memory by prosecutors - he is simply not credible. The only thing worse is Rominger's amazing inability to make that more clear by way of his questioning.
SO WHICH IS IT MIKE - your Perjury hearing statement "I made certain IT was stopped" or your Grand Jury statement "I JUST DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT".
Seems to me you made up this - "I stopped it and viewed them face to face" story after you got all the flack in the media about failure to help a helpless child you say was being raped before your very eyes.
I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me.
Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way
But you told investigators and the Grand Jury that he walked out without ever coming face to face with Sandusky and the boy. Sandusky said he never saw McQueary that night.
You told Dr Dranov you saw the boy start to come out of the locker room - and an arm pulled him back in. But in his trial testimony he says that's not what he told Dranov.
Then there is the account by some that he told or emailed some players that he chased the naked boy out into the parking lot but could not catch him - "making certain that IT stopped".
You told the Perjury Hearing Judge that he saw no pain or distress on the boy's face -
We also have a report from one researcher who tried to recreate what Mike said with a video camera in that locker room and could not see any way his accounts are credible.
How can AG Kelly ever expect to go to trial with Curley & Schultz with Mike as a witness - but wait - She won't have to do that because she's not going to be AG in January.
What do the readers think?
Given everything we've learned so far this is the best condensed version of the McQ clusterfuck disaster that I can offer:
Taking Mike's first statements as the most accurate - coming from those who heard them. According to Dr. Dranov Mike would not say he SAW anything - he kept going back to what he had heard - which we know was 3 slapping sounds he thought were sexual.
According to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience: "A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it .
Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with:
According to Joe he used these 4 words in a 10 minute description of his 45 second locker room experience: "A sexual nature" and "fondling" - or whatever you call it .
Since we have no context for those words and we know what Dr. Dranov said I will go with:
"Joe I heard some sounds I though were of a sexual nature but when I glanced in the shower room I thought Jerry may have been fondling that boy".What has happened through a series of unfortunate events is this:
- 1) Mike did not do what he should have done and A) confirmed his suspicion OR B) convinced his father and doctor to involve the police
- 2) Mike failed to offer enough convincing statements to Tim or Gary to give them the idea this was anything different than another bear hug in a shower.
- 3) Mike then enhanced his story - perhaps at the urging of prosecutors - to the Grand Jury OR the Attorney General decided to misstate what Mike actually said.
- 4) The Attorney General in her zeal decided to publish his story as a definitive "He saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe Tim and Gary" And in order to silence Tim and Gary as impeaching witnesses in the Sandusky Trial charge them with Perjury.
- 5) John P Surma and the BoT decided to take that statement in the Presentment as unassailable fact and SURMA led the drive to fire Joe and Dr. Spanier giving the Media good reason to believe the Presentment must be fact since PSU's BoT use it unanimously to fire Joe Paterno - He must be guilty.
Locker Room Description
