Skip to content

McQueary: ‘I didn’t just turn and run’

Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary

Unless you’re one of the individuals in that one Geico commercial, you’re no doubt aware that Mike McQueary has come under a firestorm of criticism for his role in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal that’s plagued Penn State for more than a week.

Per the testimony of McQueary, who was placed on paid administrative leave last week, the then-grad assistant witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower of the school’s football building in 2002.  Based on the grand jury’s presentment in the case, it appeared McQueary did nothing to stop the alleged attack, deciding instead to run and call his father, who told him to leave the building.

According to McQueary, that’s simply not the case.

In an email to former teammates obtained by NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander, McQueary said that “the truth is not out there fully”, that he “didn’t just turn and run.”  Instead, McQueary states in the email, “I made sure it stopped.”

McQueary went on to write that “I did the right thing… you guys know me” and he “had to make quick, tough decisions.”

The grand jury wrote in its 23-page indictment of Sandusky that, after McQueary witnessed the alleged rape, he “left immediately, distraught.”  Nowhere does it state that McQueary “did the right thing” by stopping the alleged rape of a child that was already in progress or by getting the young boy out of harm’s way.

The individual transcripts of those who testified in front of the grand jury were not released.  Rather, the presentment was and it was merely a summation of what was discovered during the course of a two-year-plus investigation, so it’s entirely possible McQueary testified to stopping the alleged sexual assault and it simply wasn’t included in the presentment.

McQueary has yet to speak publicly since the scandal broke, although Sandusky will tonight.  The former Nittany Lions defensive coordinator will be interviewed by Bob Costas on NBC’s “Rock Center with Brian Williams” at 10 pm. ET.

Permalink 34 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
34 Responses to “McQueary: ‘I didn’t just turn and run’”
  1. Deb says: Nov 14, 2011 7:54 PM

    Are there legal obstacles to McQueary giving an interview? The most important thing is protecting the evidence to ensure a conviction. But if possible, he should give an interview to fill in the blanks from the grand jury summary. If he did something to stop Sandusky, he shouldn’t have to live with all the accusations that he just walked away.

  2. bamasleeper13 says: Nov 14, 2011 8:01 PM

    NBC just released that Sandusky denies doing anything to any children contrary to the 40 counts against him. I’m not sure any of these people know right from wrong. The Grand Jury info sounds like McQueary just walked away, why doesn’t he speak up or is this just more spin. A long time went by with Sanduskey just going his way and no one did a damn thing.

  3. 187onsandusky says: Nov 14, 2011 8:10 PM

    It’s actually Rock Center with Brian Williams.

    DVR is set, I’ll be getting a run in my adult soccer league at that time.

    So curious to see it, hope Costas doesn’t hold back.

  4. samel2003 says: Nov 14, 2011 8:16 PM

    And Bart Simpson will be co-hosting with spongebob. Not thirty rock dude. Rock center with Brian Williams.

  5. deadeye says: Nov 14, 2011 8:32 PM

    I hope McQueary put a stop to the child rape. But even if he did, he still apparently went along with the ensuing cover up.

  6. hooptie says: Nov 14, 2011 9:30 PM

    The 75% of what we don’t know is starting to come out…..this will continue the nightmare that PSU cannot spin/cover up.

  7. lemmam says: Nov 14, 2011 9:53 PM

    if mcqueary didn’t run, did he lie to the grand jury or is he lying now?

  8. melikefootball says: Nov 14, 2011 10:06 PM

    The two getting the most scrutiny has been McQueary and Paterno when no one in the media has covered how the judicial system had the opertunity to stop this years ago. No one has addressed the police the mother reported this type action long ago or the one who told Sandusky don’t do this again that neither did anything. McQueary probably regreats that he said anything with what has gone on to him after he did what he thought he should. Any whistleblowers out there suley has watched this and said not me. We prosecuted Paterno in less than three days and Sandusky has already had a court cancelled and an interview on national TV. McQueary is under protective custody and Paterno is ostracizeed

  9. rubbernilly says: Nov 14, 2011 10:11 PM

    I’ve said already that the Penn State game last weekend shouldn’t have been played, and plenty of people have said that that would have “punished” the athletes on the team that had nothing to do with the controversy.

    That might be true, but it occurred to me…

    …if I were on that team, and especially if I were one of the seniors who were to be honored that night, I would have gotten together with the other seniors and called a players-only meeting. Then we would have gone to the administration and said that the only way we would play that game would be if there were none of the coaching staff on the field. We would take it on ourselves to coach ourselves.

    There’s no way that coaching staff existed together every day and did not know what was going on with Sandusky.

    And, no this wouldn’t have been about winning that game, so don’t tell me how idiotic this would have been. This wouldn’t be about winning that game; this would have been about making a statement about those coaches and showing some awareness of how small football is compared to what happened. It would have shown some respect to the victims while still playing the game.

  10. belichickee says: Nov 14, 2011 10:23 PM

    Oh please, if McQueary stopped it he would have called the cops, or at the very least called the kid’s mom to come get him or brought him home himself. He didn’t, hence the reason no one knows who this poor kid is. He got the hell out of there as soon as he could, otherwise we would all know what happened to that poor kid.

  11. 10of14 says: Nov 14, 2011 10:44 PM

    He is a Nancy Boy who still hides behind Mommy and Daddy. Really? Midis you kick Sandusky in the nuts? No. Did you smack him in the back of the head? No. Did you knock his teeth out? No. Then how did you exactly stop it punk? Yes; didn’t think so. Get off your parents couch and step up to the plate and take a swing without the benefit of a tee…disgusting Mike…shame on you.

  12. dkhhuey says: Nov 14, 2011 10:52 PM

    Nice try you f@#$ing coward! You can attempt to rewrite history to a version that you did what you should have done all you want! However, your grand jury testimony said NOTHING other then you running home to daddy leaving Sandusky to continue to anally rape a 10 year old. Then you again took the cowardly way out by obtaining a new paying job in payment for your continued silence over the next 10 years. You are the worst form of scum on the planet McQueary and no matter how hard you try – we all know what you did! You cowardly abandoned a child being raped. I hope to god the images and the sounds of that night will now haunt you until the day you die. I doubt it though, since it hasn’t over the last 10 years.

  13. highoctane1 says: Nov 14, 2011 11:08 PM

    I have no idea what happened that day or how McQueary testified. However, I have personally seen arrest affidavits that not gave incomplete descriptions of witness testimony, but actually made up statements that witnesses later said that they never made. The moral of the story is – don’t treat every word of the grand jury indictment as gospel.

  14. thefiesty1 says: Nov 14, 2011 11:11 PM

    Report it to the police, coward. Only thing he did was cover his own ass.

  15. dkhhuey says: Nov 14, 2011 11:27 PM

    @high – sorry! You absolutely have to take every world of the grand jury testimony as gospel since anybody making false statements will be charged with perjury and/or obstruction charges. These are just as serious as being sworn in to testify in a trial so your statements are incorrect. Arrest affidavits are completely different from grand jury testimony

  16. onceuponatimeinsports says: Nov 14, 2011 11:33 PM

    If what McCreary is now saying is true then where is the little boy he “saved?”

    What was his name? Who called his parents and what did they all tell the police? Where is he now and why didn’t he testify before the grand jury?

    Did he stop Sandusky from leaving with the little boy?

    Or did McCreary’s “Save” simply consist of a quick , “Stop that!” followed by a hasty departure?

    And if the people at Penn State including Paterno knew who the boy was and had his side of the story why was Sandusky allowed to continue his association with the school and the police not brought in?

    Something still smells in Happy Valley….

  17. normswifevera says: Nov 14, 2011 11:48 PM

    It clearly states in the grand jury report that McQuery not only saw Sandusky and the boy, but he testified that they saw him as well.

    Even without McQueary’s full testimony being released, that simple fact by itself should have been enough to conclude that the incident stopped. What was Sandusky going to do when he saw another adult walk in? Say “Hi Mike” and keep on going?

    Of course it stopped. However, McQueary still left the boy in Sandusky’s care and did absolutely nothing to notify police for the last decade. Not exactly “doing the right thing”.

  18. atchick says: Nov 14, 2011 11:48 PM

    I am open to giving him the benefit of the doubt at this time that he didn’t leave the kid there, based on some details may be concealed to assist the prosecution. And this may be why he wasn’t fired. However, I cannot excuse his tolerating this man’s presence around the program and with young boys for a decade after, and only now is he coming forward. His credibility is tarnished for that, and that is something he will have to be prepared to answer to at some point to the public, as well as on the witness stand.

  19. firedude7160 says: Nov 15, 2011 12:18 AM

    While following all the coverage the Sandusky Child Molestation case had received, which has been dubbed the “Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal” by the media, one thing is very evident- Society seems oblivious to recent history, and seems to be repeating it.

    The response this situation has received, from the media and general public, reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse incident from 2006. In that case there was intense media coverage of a police investigation into allegations lodged against individuals from the Duke Lacrosse team. The media coverage of those allegations prompted an immediate, and intense, negative response from the general public. The players were condemned, by the public, based on the incomplete/false information that was being reported at the time. In turn the reputation of the team, and players, was irrevocably damaged. Then, almost a year later, it was discovered that the allegations were false. The team was innocent of all the things they had allegedly done. The Media’s rush to report the allegations had proved erroneous. A couple articles were written absolving the team of any wrongdoing, and multiple news outlets apologized for their coverage of the incident. But, almost 5 years later, the program has still not completely recovered. If asked, most people remember do not remember that the players were cleared, but simply what they were accused of doing.

    I am in no way saying that all of the charges in the Sandusky case are false. I believe that facts from the 1998 case are enough to prove that Sandusky is a sexual predator. But what I am saying is that I had hoped everyone [the media and general public] had learned something from the mistakes made in the Duke case. The rush to publish any report or rumor as though it was fact is almost worse now than it was back then. Information is still being disseminated before it is confirmed to be true. Accuracy has been neglected in the name of speed. Reporters feel, as long as they preface their statement with “Unconfirmed reports state,” that they are free to spread any rumor they deem appropriate. Journalistic integrity has taken a big hit.

    In this era of instant gratification in which we currently live- with the speed of Twitter, the anonymity of online comments, and the lack of responsibility of a blog post- we have lost sight of the “Innocent until Proven Guilty” standard associated with legal cases. We now live in an era where a person must first stand trial in the court of public opinion. Where any information presented is considered an undeniable fact, no matter the credibility of its source. Any information we deem appropriate is used to condemn the group/individual. And once found guilty, in the court of public opinion, there is little that can be done to overturn the conviction. Even if the subject is found to be completely innocent, the damage done cannot be undone. Sure a couple articles will be written in an attempt to clear up the misconceptions, but they will only serve as a footnote in the inevitable ‘Wiki’ page that will be created.

    I am reminded of a famous quote by George Santayana in which he states that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It is very apparent that, as a society, history is our least favorite subject.

  20. atchick says: Nov 15, 2011 12:33 AM

    @ firedude7160:
    I think in this case, there is substantial evidence(1998, the janitor, 2002 incident with McQueary, and the final incident at the high school that FINALLY initiated a thorough investigation). Yes the media does tend to jump in with both feet before looking, and that may be the case..to an extent…with McQueary. But overall, this man’s despicable actions have been kept quiet for too long. In this case, the media is 100% right to report anything and everything, including opinion so this never happens again.

  21. frug says: Nov 15, 2011 12:55 AM

    @Deb

    McQueary is not subject to a gag order, but I strongly suspect his lawyers have told him to keep his mouth shut. Right now his job seems to be safe thanks to Pennsylvania whistleblowers law, but that could easily change if he were to say something that showed he was complicit in a coverup. More importantly, anything he says publicly can be used against him in a theoretical civil suit by the victims.

    (I’m guessing the DA has also asked him not to speak to the media since any statements he makes that did not exactly match his grand jury testimony could hurt the criminal case against Sandusky)

    @firedude7160

    You are right that the Duke lacrosse case remains one of the most shameful events in recent sports related history, but their are two major differences in this case.

    1) There is already an indictment in this case.

    2) More importantly, this case does not feature a media whore prosecutor hell bent on using a high profile case to advance his career despite overwhelming evidence that no crime was committed. The grand jury has been investigating this case for at least two years and it wasn’t until the actual arrests that anyone even knew about the investigation.

    Obviously everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I seriously doubt we will see any DA’s go to jail this time.

  22. 6ball says: Nov 15, 2011 3:15 AM

    .

    Are we to believe that material facts about McQueary’s actions before, during, and after a child rape have yet to be disclosed? I’m hopeful that someday he’ll tell us the answers to the questions the investigators never asked.

    .

  23. bryan1945 says: Nov 15, 2011 3:24 AM

    @firdude- Nice analysis of how the media works today. In this case, I’m not so sure, but I’m going to let it work it’s way through the courts since the grand jury report is only a summary of the testimony. Once all the info comes out, we’ll have a better idea of exactly what happened.

  24. sojumaster says: Nov 15, 2011 11:37 AM

    Sandusky is claiming to be innocent. (Lie)
    McQueary said to stop it. (Lie)

    I can understand a public figure gets publically accused and you get 20 other accusations out of hte woodwork because people are desperate and want their 15 minutes of fame, and will ruin someone’s reputation by joining with a false accuation.

    BUT, this was a result of a 2 year investigation and people that had no appearent ties with each other. This was done privately. There is no F’in way that all these people are lieing to a grand jury. There is no way that all these people are ganging up to take down an coach of a college football team.

    McQueary is a lieing sack of shit also. There is no reason that the Grandy Jury is going to lie about their report. Why would they mention he went to his office and called his father? If I was there, I would be calling 911, and tell them to bring an ambulance and a body bag to pick up the remains of Sandusky.

  25. florida727 says: Nov 15, 2011 12:05 PM

    “sojumaster”, I disagree with you only because you didn’t read the article thoroughly. The reason McQueary’s comments differ from the Grand Jury document is because the Grand Jury document is a SUMMATION of its findings, NOT a word-for-word detailed description of what it found to take place.

    Do I think Sandusky is guilty? Absolutely. The key is contained in Costas’ interview when he asks, “what’s their motivation”, referencing why McQueary or the janitor would lie about what they saw. (BTW, note to Jerry: the old, “you’ll have to ask them that” defense won’t cut it in a court of law.) That’s what Sandusky’s defense team will have to overcome, and absent a PROVABLE rationale for McQueary and the janitor lying about WHAT THEY SAY THEY WITNESSED, Sandusky is heading for a 6′ x 8′ block of concrete for the rest of his life.

  26. sojumaster says: Nov 15, 2011 12:51 PM

    @florida

    Why would the Grand Jury just simply omitted such information? Because it does not exist. Maybe you should read teh actual Grand Jury report. (Make sure you hae a strong stomach, I almost lost my lunch)

    Quote from the report “He saw a naked boy, Vistim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immedately, distraught. The graduate assistant went to his office and call his father, reporting to him what he had see. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his hom. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Caoch Joe Paterno … The next morning … the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home. where he reported what he had seen.”

    NOTHING there indicated he did ANYTHING to help the boy. He did not call the cops nor did he attempt to stop it. He waited till the next day to report it to JoePA.

    Do you REALLY think the Grand Jury would leave out such important fact as “The Graduate assistant proceeded to beat the dog crap out of Sandusky” ?

    McQueary is following Sandusky’s lead and is boldface lieing in hopes that he does not get criminally charged.

  27. dkhhuey says: Nov 15, 2011 1:00 PM

    @soju – spot on!!! There is no way that little nugget gets left out of the grand jury indictment. NO way! That is not a trivial fact and would most certainly would be one of the main points when justifying the finding of the grand jury. In McQueary’s mind, he is assuming that because Sandusky saw him, he immediately stopped. McQueary can’t say that for certain because he left immediately to call daddy. Had McQueary actually stopped it – then there would be a ton more detail about the ensuing conversation between the three – ALL of that would have been captured in the indictment as well.

    Again, sorry McQueary – you are a coward, you didn’t stop it, and you know it.

  28. wegonnadoitbaby says: Nov 15, 2011 1:18 PM

    Mike McQueary will not be speaking out anytime soon. If, as he states in the purported e-mail, he “stopped” the abuse it would have already been made public. It’s a zero percent chance the D.A. or the Justice Department would leave their star witness dangling in the wind with death threats whirling about had he done something to stop it. They would have “leaked” that information to the press.

    Very simply he can’t talk because he already said what he did, and that is enough to keep him out of jail, but not nearly enough to satisfy even the most minimal interpretation of moral responsibility. If he says anything different than what he told the Grand Jury it’s a problem for him and the prosecution. If he told the Grand Jury he “stopped” it and it just didn’t make it in the report he would have said so by now and publicly, and the D.A. would have “clarified” his testimony. The fact that none of that has occurred tells everyone their is no more to tell.

    He has a problem. He is a no hire even as a night stocker at Wal-Mart at this point. Federal Whistleblower laws make it illegal for Penn State to get rid of him and he needs the cash…and you know Penn State attorneys are researching any and all loopholes to the law, because until he is gone it will be hard to start cleaning house. Time for Penn State to play the behind the scenes “Booster” Game. Head over to his home in a fancy new Land Rover and a big bag of cash and tell him “here you go….now step down.”

  29. Deb says: Nov 15, 2011 1:23 PM

    @frug …

    Yes, I’m thinking all the lawyers involved are telling him to zip it for the reasons you mentioned. My bro & sis-in-law–both successful criminal defense attorneys–are coming in for the holidays next week. It will be interesting to sit and pick their brains on the legal points of this case when the kids aren’t in the room. They deal with these issues a lot because one of my sis-in-law’s areas of expertise is representing the interests of minor children in situations like this.

  30. sojumaster says: Nov 15, 2011 1:55 PM

    The Whistleblowers law has nothing to do with this incident.

    In 1986, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted Pennsylvania’s “Whistleblower Law,” declaring it unlawful for any employer to “discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate or retaliate” against an employee in compensation or in terms or conditions of employment because the employee has made, or is about to make, a good faith report to the employer or to an “appropriate authority” about an instance of “wrongdoing or waste.”

    JoePA is NOT an appropriate authority nor his employer.

  31. chiefagc5675 says: Nov 15, 2011 2:45 PM

    Grand Juries are not some infallible body- they’re just freakin people off the street- stop
    treating what has been released as fundies do with the BS bible.

  32. dkhhuey says: Nov 15, 2011 2:58 PM

    @chief – sorry are juries ace!!! This is a judicial process that absolutely holds water in the legal world. When you are indicted by a grand jury – the next step, if there is no settlement, is a courtroom and jury trial. Again, to be indicted by a grand jury means you’re being charged with a criminal offense and that is not the trivial matter you’re trying to make it out to be.

  33. dkhhuey says: Nov 15, 2011 2:59 PM

    D’oh – meant to say sorry, but grand juries are as serious as courtroom juries.

  34. pafaye says: Nov 24, 2011 1:51 PM

    I would be interested to know if any former teamates who supposedly were emailed by Mike McQuerry, have come forward and said, “yes” I received his email.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!