Skip to content

McQueary statement to police differs from email accounts

Mike McQueary AP

Additional layers were added to the Jerry Sandusky child-sex abuse scandal at Penn State recently with a pair of Mike McQueary emails surfacing Monday and Tuesday.

In the first email, sent to friends and former teammates, the in-limbo Nittany Lions assistant insisted that he “didn’t just turn and run” after allegedly witnessing Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower of the football building in 2002, writing “I made sure it stopped” before phoning his father.  In the second email, this one to a former Penn State classmate, McQueary not only reiterates that he put a stop to the alleged attack — “I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room” — but that he had “discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police.”

In a statement made to police during the grand jury’s investigation of Sandusky, the hand-written copy of which was reviewed and verified by Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News, McQueary appears to have completely left out what he alleged in the two emails.

In it, McQueary states that he witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower and hurried out of the locker room. He does not mention stopping the assault, and does not mention talking to any police officers in the following days, the statement says.

The whole incident, the statement says, lasted about a minute, and McQueary wrote that he would not recognize the boy if he saw him today.

McQueary does say in the police statement that he talked to his father, to Joe Paterno, and to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz.

The paper notes that this statement to police, not the emails that he’s been sending to friends and former teammates and classmates, matches up with the grand jury’s summary of his testimony in front of them last December.

In another development related to the McMails, and going back to his claims of discussions with police, the police chief of the State College police department said today that his department did not receive any reports from McQueary on the alleged 2002 incident.  A Penn State spokesperson also said that the university has found no record of any report made by McQueary to the University Police concerning Sandusky’s alleged on-campus rape.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
43 Responses to “McQueary statement to police differs from email accounts”
  1. nineroutsider says: Nov 16, 2011 6:04 PM

    “A Penn State spokesperson also said that the university has found no record of any report made by McQueary to the University Police concerning Sandusky’s alleged on-campus rape.”

    Everyone familiar with the term ‘patsy’? This guy is completely setup to be the Patsy and will be. I hope he takes them all down, but I can see everyone, including the great Joe Pa, shoveling everything this guy’s way.

  2. bcjim says: Nov 16, 2011 6:09 PM

    ***McQueary does say in the police statement that he talked to his father, to Joe Paterno, and to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz.***

    Maybe he was lied to and told an investigation was made or a financial settlement was reached or a plea deal or something?

    Yes, he clearly should have gone to the State Police or somebody after a few months. HOWEVER, the above should have been 10000% adequate ( Joe Paterno, and to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz.)

  3. rendadoll says: Nov 16, 2011 6:09 PM

    Mike McQueary needs to get himself a High Powered Lawyer, The Powers that be are going to put as blame on him as they can.

  4. rayburns says: Nov 16, 2011 6:22 PM

    McQueary is realizing that trying to save face on ‘private’ emails is not working.

    Now people will be questioning, deservedly, his testimony in front of the grand jury and contemplating perjury.

  5. pdmjr says: Nov 16, 2011 6:38 PM

    He’s a freaking liar.

  6. wegonnadoitbaby says: Nov 16, 2011 6:48 PM

    Previous post below. Although I was wrong about this guy talking in whatever format, I was correct in the belief that were there anymore details to be had they would already be public. This guys going to end up in jail if he does not find a good attorney.
    Also, if you watched the CBS “INTERVIEW”, he to Armen off camera he was worried about his coaching career and being able to support his family. No mention of concern for the 10 year old boy he would not recognize today. As said…h is a no hire anywhere.

    You said 1 day ago:

    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. Pennsylvania Whistle blower 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.”

  7. auburntigers34 says: Nov 16, 2011 7:09 PM

    it’s pretty cut and dry. if Sandusky took this child home,McQueary didn’t stop sh*t. there’s a huge difference in stopping something and interupting it.

  8. onceuponatimeinsports says: Nov 16, 2011 7:32 PM

    It never fails to amaze me the things people say or commit to email that then turn out to be lies at seems in this case McCreary’s statements are.

    There’s an old adage that to be a good liar you have a have a good memory. McCreary doesn’t seem to possess one…

  9. dkhhuey says: Nov 16, 2011 7:40 PM


    State College Police: We don’t have one report from McQueary – SWING and a miss

    University Police: We are looking into the matter but at this time, we have not found any record of McQueary making a report – SWING and a miss

    McQueary’s HANDWRITTEN report taken during the grand jury procedure: “witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower and hurried out of the locker room. He does not mention stopping the assault, and does not mention talking to any police officers in the following days, the statement says.” – BIG ASS SWING and a miss.

    As I stated earlier – McQueary is a coward who did nothing that night to stop it, did nothing from that point on to stop future acts. He did the minimum by waiting a day, then telling Joe Pa. After he let a 1 1/2 weeks go by without saying anything, he talked to the AD and VP at which time he watched and listened to them sweep it under the Penn State rug, he shut his mouth, got a new paying position on the staff and has been prospering and profiting from his cowardly silence for the next 10 years.

  10. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 8:20 PM

    You are once again are jumping to conclusions! We have no idea what transpired from 2002 to 2009..but we will eventually. What we do know is that McQueary told his superiors which included Gary Schultz. Who is Schultz? Well he was the VP of PSU and Supervisor of the University Police. If you told the Supervisor of a Police Department of a witnessed crime wouldn’t that be reporting a crime??? What we know is there was a culture of “cover up” and it exists at many University’s with Penn State being the most disgusting and abhorrent. We shouldn’t lose focus on who the real bad people are. If McQueary was playing along with the cover up he would have simply lied to the Grand Jury…he didn’t…he told the truth and you call him a coward.

  11. vikesfansteve says: Nov 16, 2011 8:30 PM

    Mcqueary is a stain.

  12. dkhhuey says: Nov 16, 2011 8:38 PM

    @super – again, the facts are there and they are increasing with every single statement this coward makes. By all means, continue to defend this coward and ignore both police departments and what is actually written, by said coward, in the grand jury report.

    No, if you read what he said in his email, he said he talked to the police, and the supervisor of the police – hence saying a police rep was there along with Schultz. The police are saying, without a doubt, that they were not and no statement was made. He is lying and attempting to rewrite his story in a more favorable light – it isn’t working.

    Since you seem to have selective reading comprehension skills – let me help you out with some quotes from the last thread you were misreading. NOTICE the words WITH POLICE AND WITH THE OFFICIAL AT THE UNIVERSITY IN CHARGE OF THE POLICE part of it!:

    In this email, obtained by the Allentown Morning Call, McQueary, who played football at Penn State and was an assistant coach for the Nittany Lions until being placed on paid administrative leave last week, tells a former classmate that he “did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police” after allegedly witnessing Sandusky sodomizing the boy in a shower located in the school’s football building.

    Again, pull your head out of the sand – this guy is a liar and a coward

  13. noaxetogrind says: Nov 16, 2011 8:47 PM

    I am as offended by all of this as anybody else but don’t seem to have the same animus for McQueary as many others do. I don’t think he handled it perfectly but I also think he is being made out to be the scapegoat a little bit. Sit back and realize the situation as it unfolded for a minute. You stroll into a locker room and see a man who is a legendary figure at your place of employment assaulting a child. The same man is also the father of one of your boyhood best friends and their family is close to your family. It’s not like the assault continued on after he witnessed it. As it states in the Grand Jury report, Sandusky & the child quickly left after being interupted. He discloses the facts to his immediate supervisor and then within days to the man who is responsible for the University Police Department. I don’t think there is any doubt that any reasonble person would conclude that he had indeed in essence reported it to the police. You may not like how it handled it. I respect that. I would just ask that you stop and think about all the factors I have listed here before you lump him in with Paterno and the administrators who should have known better. Based on what I know of this story right now, the prosecutor has it right in terms of who has been charged. There is a difference between breaking the law and not doing what you may or may not deem to have been the appropriate response. It goes without saying that all of our hearts break for the children involved. As for me, I can find a little pity as well for a young guy who witnessed something that must have been surreal to him. If you think it is easy to witness that and not be affected I suggest you take the time to read the Grand Jury report and the tesitimony of the janitor involved. I don’t know Mike M. from Adam but I can empathize with somebody who may have made a bad decision under incredible duress.

  14. Deb says: Nov 16, 2011 8:59 PM

    I don’t know what this guy is doing or what to believe, but he’s being an idiot–that I’m sure of. Apparently he was a very immature 28 in 2002 and a very immature 37 today.

    No matter how much you want to save face, you don’t send out e-mails on something getting this kind of media attention. Tabloids will pay big money for documents like that. Even if hackers couldn’t get to your e-mails and voice mails–and they can–at least some of your pals will sell the info. And you don’t tell your friends information that differs from your grand jury testimony unless you want to further betray these kids by screwing up the case–and create more legal problems for yourself.

    As some have said, the guy needs to hire a very good criminal defense attorney. Let his attorney examine his grand-jury testimony and prep him so he doesn’t contradict it. Then schedule a one-time sit-down interview with someone like Oprah who’ll be tough but gentle with the dork.

  15. dkhhuey says: Nov 16, 2011 9:10 PM

    @Deb – good point! Never even thought about the damage he may be doing to the case being built by the prosecutor right now.

  16. jag8r904 says: Nov 16, 2011 9:30 PM

    If he stopped it he would have had to take the boy with him, right? iI mean, he can’t just say “Hey! Stop that right now!…Ok, that’s better” and then turn and leave the kid there. Who would do that? That’s probably worse than not stopping it at all.

  17. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 9:32 PM

    The Grand Jury report clearly states that Gary Schultz (Supervisor of the University Police) was notified of Sandusky’s crime by McQueary. Schultz IS the University Police!! Your just another one of these holier than thou people who like to point the finger and shout obscenities from a safe distance…I don’t like McQueary but isn’t the villian. Sandusky and those who brushed this under the rug are….my eyes are wide open.

  18. Deb says: Nov 16, 2011 9:35 PM

    @dkhhuey …

    As noaxetogrind said, it would have been a shocking thing to witness–even for a 28-year-old. And the media firestorm surrounding something like this is beyond comprehension. When he told the CBS reporter he’s churning like a snow globe, I’m sure that’s true. That’s why he needs to have appropriate representation. People think that because they didn’t commit a crime, they can just handle this stuff on their own. No … he’s way out of his depth, and if I were prosecuting Sandusky, I’d be concerned about these conflicting statements leaking out from McQueary.

  19. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 9:40 PM

    “Never even thought about the damage he may be doing to the case being built by the prosecutor right now”

    Prosecutors don’t usually try witnesses….what crime would you charge him with??? Telling the truth?? He reported the crime. Now a civil trial is a whole other ball game….and even that would be tough seeing how he is a witness to the crimes of Sandusky and the University.

  20. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 9:43 PM

    Your right @dkhhuey I take back my previous post lol!

  21. dkhhuey says: Nov 16, 2011 9:54 PM

    @super – you’re just to f@#$ing stupid to respond to anymore. At what point in my post did I say ANYTHING about trying a witness. I may suggest either take a reading comprehension class or stop projecting your stupidity onto my posts.

    I’ll try and type a bit slower so you can get it. If the McQueary continues to speak in public today and contradict what he said back in 2002 to the grand jury, he is handing the defense some fodder to chip away at his credibility. Again, if that isn’t clear enough for you to understand – sorry, I can’t dummy it up for you any more.

    Exactly! If I was the defense attorney, I’d be popping a bottle of bubbly right now! McQueary is just giving him a very nice set of points to attack his credibility and start to chip away at his testimony. However, seeing how his attorney let him make those ridiculous statements on NBC – I’m not sure if he’s smart enough to realize what McQueary is handing him. I’m still in shock that he was the want who set up that phone conversation!

  22. bunkmcnulty says: Nov 16, 2011 10:01 PM

    You are so right. As if McQueary hasn’t been useless enough, now to save his a$$, this guy is going to totally f’up the prosecutor’s case.

    If I were the defense attorney, I would have a field day with these inconsistencies. Prosecutors need to get this guy to “shut up.”

  23. geogibso says: Nov 16, 2011 10:22 PM

    In many communities the mayor or town council is ultimately in charge of overseeing the police. Is reporting a crime to the town council the same as going to the police? If the mayor or town council want to cover up the crime do you think the police will ever learn about it from them? Talking to the “Supervisor of University Police” is not the same as talking to the police. The University Police are simply one of probably many departments that fall under his supervision. He has no power to investigate or arrest for crimes committed at the school.

  24. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 11:14 PM

    Get a life…you shout and name call in every one of your posts….go get anger management. I obviously hit a home run on some of my previous comments to get you all riled! And remember that insults are the sign of a weak argument!

  25. deadeye says: Nov 16, 2011 11:29 PM

    I don’t trust McQueary in any of the statements he’s currently making, it all sounds like a PR move to me. However, he now claims that he spoke to the police. I honestly don’t know, and would be curious to find out if he testified to the grand jury stating that he spoke to police about what he saw. I would be inclined to believe his testimony above anything he’s saying now. It is ENTIRELY possible that, if he did speak to authorities, no record exists of the conversation. That is the nature of cover-ups, and this whole case is an attempt to unravel a huge cover-up that spanned at least 13 years.

  26. superfbfan says: Nov 16, 2011 11:47 PM

    dead on deadeye…if your gonna cover something up why keep a record of it! This whole thing stinks to high heaven….this is just the tip of the iceberg…

  27. norcalirish says: Nov 17, 2011 6:24 AM

    I’m absolutely astounded that people are defending McQueary’s alleged actions and then turning around and criticizing JoePa. You don’t want to “lump [McQueary] in with Paterno and the administrators who should have known better”?! WHAT??!? This guy was in his late 20s when he allegedly witnessed the rape of an adolescent. But PATERNO should have known better? He didn’t even see it! Good lord.

    ….this is so monumentally ridiculous that I’m not even gonna waste my time on comparing Paterno’s alleged actions to McQueary’s alleged actions. If you know the details of the grand jury report you know what I’m talking about.

  28. lionsfanatic84 says: Nov 17, 2011 7:40 AM

    I hope these sick fools have a great rest of their lives being sodomized daily in prison

  29. florida727 says: Nov 17, 2011 7:50 AM

    Personally, I think “auburntigers34″ made one of the most astute observations/comments when he/she said there’s a difference between STOPPING something and INTERRUPTING something. McQueary very likely interrupted Sandusky raping the kid, but McQueary did nothing to put a permanent end to Sandusky’s actions.

    Now, as others have pointed out, he’s just screwing his own credibility by punching buttons on a computer keyboard. As THE primary witness for the prosecution, why the prosecutor hasn’t talked to him even before this went public and advised him to not communicate ANYTHING about this case to ANYONE, “friends” included, shows a lack of sense by the prosecutor, unless McQueary just blatantly chose to ignore the instructions.

    Note to McQueary: just STFU, your time to talk will come soon enough.

  30. totallydisgusted says: Nov 17, 2011 8:26 AM


    please stop! He’s a coward and a liar. he would have been better served to stick with the story he told to the police. guess what, he has just pissed off the police and prosecution with that lie. they are going to find a way to crush him once they get what they want from him

  31. florida727 says: Nov 17, 2011 8:53 AM

    “totallydisgusted”, aside from a great handle (aren’t we all ‘totally disgusted’ by these events?), I have to disagree with you. The bigger-fish-to-fry is obviously Sandusky. The prosecution needs McQueary as a corroborating witness, just like they also need the janitor that observed the oral sex by Sandusky. Without McQueary and the janitor, unfortunately, it becomes a “he said / she said” argument absent actual “proof”. In exchange, McQueary will be given prosecutorial immunity. They won’t crush him. They’ll let him walk. That, in and of itself, is a form of tragedy considering what he could have done but chose not to.

  32. dkhhuey says: Nov 17, 2011 9:43 AM

    @florida – spot on! As Deb put it earlier, since McQueary wasn’t charged with any crime, he didn’t think he needed an attorney and has been surprised by the tsunami of criticism and accusations that are flying around about him. Had he done the smart thing up front and hired an attorney immediately, he would be in a much better position since said attorney would have insisted that he STFU and let him do all of the talking! Instead, he has his dad do his bidding and now sends out some very idiotic emails that are contrary to his grand jury testimony. I’m guessing that the prosecutor had a ton on his plate putting together the case and assumed he didn’t have to immediately worry about McQueary since he thought he was smart enough to 1) Shut his yapper about any details of the case, and 2) Hire a freakin attorney given the highly flammable nature of this case.

    Obviously both points have been proven wrong and I have no doubt that his office will rectify that situation in the very near future. It astounds me that given the supposed intellectual levels of the parties involved here, how badly this has been handled at every single level and at every single point in time.

  33. dkhhuey says: Nov 17, 2011 9:46 AM

    @florida – they won’t be able to utilize the janitor because from what I’ve read, he suffers from advance stages of dementia. They may be able to use the other janitors he told, as well as his supervisor, but the original witness is toast.

  34. malice420dotcom says: Nov 17, 2011 10:20 AM

    As with 911, suddenly the “leaders” in sport media found all the goods. Where were the sport media for the previous 16 years ?
    Not a single journalist stuck their investigative nose into this guy when the whole town knew.
    What was the sport media game cover up and shut up for access?
    Many kids were abused because of the media silence. The sport media was as silent with this as they were loud with mounds of hate headlines aimed at Vietnam Veterans as we returned to America.
    I shutter thinking the sons and daughters of the Cronkite protester cowards are running the media.
    The sport media should be as accountable for the abuse as JoePa..

  35. whyalwaysthehate says: Nov 17, 2011 10:37 AM

    Perhaps the PSU conspiracy continues with McQueasy working with the defense to kill the case as the lone lying eyewitness. It may be the only way everyone walks, especially JoePa and the pension.

    Or he is the second coming of Lee Harvey Oswald.

  36. lrg51 says: Nov 17, 2011 10:43 AM

    A good attorney is going to tell people like McQeary, Sandusky, Schutz, Curley, and Paterno to shut their “pie holes”. Apparently Mike and Jerry are getting good legal advice. In spite of what we might think of these people… The more they talk… the more it gets much worse!

    I heard the rumor that McQeary hasn’t been let go by Penn State trustees due to the Whistleblower statute in Pennsylvania. He’s apparently got his job protected for the time being. I guess that’s why he’s on paid administrative leave.

    I agree that the more that Mike talks… The more damage he may be going to the prosecutor’s case. I also suspect that he may be setting himself up with a very difficult situation to defend his testimony he made to the grand jury.

    I thought from the outset that Mike held the key as the primary prosecution witness. Now I’m not so sure. I think he’s placed some doubt in the public mind regarding the legitimacy of his testimony.

    There is at least one victim was willing to testify. Beyond that, I think it’s going to be very interesting to see exactly what charges Jerry Sandusky faces and those that he will be convicted.

    For sure, Penn State has a lot more than football revenue to be concerned about. I’ve heard there are at least seven independent investigations into the University’s culpability. Those investigations certainly could lead to huge losses of federal funding for student financial aid, etc. and of course civil liability suits. Football revenue will be a very small part of the financial impact on Penn State.

  37. lrg51 says: Nov 17, 2011 10:44 AM

    My previous message should have read “Apparently Mike and Jerry are NOT getting good legal advice.”

  38. florida727 says: Nov 17, 2011 10:56 AM

    “dkhhuey”, thanks for the info. Did not know about the condition of the janitor. Makes McQueary all that more important because whatever the janitor told others will be considered “hearsay”, and not carry the weight of an original testimony (because of the defense’s inability to effectively cross-examine).

    I’m not an attorney, but if McQueary is confronted with a perjury claim, wouldn’t that void any protection he’d have under the Whistleblower law? If PSU is looking for justification to unload him, and they’d probably like to wash their hands of everybody involved at this point, McQueary himself might very well be giving them the bullets they’ll shoot in his direction.

    The guy needs an attorney before he screws up the case against Sandusky… and his own future, more than it is already.

  39. dkhhuey says: Nov 17, 2011 11:24 AM

    @florida – I’m not even remotely familiar with the Whistleblower law so I don’t know. However, if he does get slapped with a potential perjury charge – his testimony in the Sandusky trial would be amazingly easy to crush. If they can’t find any victims to testify and McQueary is the star witness, Sandusky may very well get off (sorry for the unintended pun) with little or no punishment. I can’t even remotely imagine what unrest that would incite.

  40. superfbfan says: Nov 17, 2011 2:04 PM

    Sorry..I will not join you and others in a rush to judgment. This entire story will take monthes and years to unfold. What you are convinced is true today will change as the facts come out.

    What you should understand is that the cover up that went on at Penn State will continue. Go look at who the trusties hired to “investigate” what happened. Their in full damage control and those in power are absolutely thrilled that the attention is on McQueary. Their not investigating what happened, their prepping for a civil case and looking for a patsy. And the icing on the cake is that university, including the police department, are protected from disclosure laws. Absolutely incredible.

  41. Deb says: Nov 17, 2011 3:15 PM

    @malice420dotcom ….

    I’m floored by the people who actually believe the media had this story and sat on it. The media in 2011 would report their own dads for child sexual abuse if they thought it would buy them 20 seconds of airtime or a front-page story. And please do not compare what the media did or didn’t report 40 years ago with today. Nor should you compare what they did or didn’t report regarding government corruption or the 9/11 terrorist plots with a child sex abuse scandal.

    My degree is in journalism and I came out of school all wide-eyed and ready to change the world. Then I spent several years in a combat zone abroad. What I learned is that most–not all, but most–journalists are LAZY. They don’t want to study the causes of decades-old conflicts, global economic meltdowns, or socio-economic inequities. Poverty and the real historic reasons for deep-seeded ethnic hatreds aren’t sexy and don’t sell. It’s easier to wait until a bomb goes off and photograph the chaos or find someone to blame in the moment than realize blame goes back a succession of five or six administrations.

    But a child rapist lurking in a major college locker room? That is right up their alley. If they’d had an inkling about Sandusky, they’d have been all over that story just as they are now. They didn’t know … and were too lazy to wonder why Sandusky wasn’t stepping into another college opportunity.

  42. dkhhuey says: Nov 17, 2011 3:30 PM

    @Deb – that’s funny – my degree was in R-TV with a minor in journalism! You are spot on with the status of today’s media coverage. It use to be (when I was in college and for a few years after) that news reporters (and editors) would vet a story quite heavily prior to airing it. I remember getting it drilled into my head over and over and over that you, as a journalist have a duty to report only the facts you can substantiate and validate. The power of the media is substantial and we were schooled to be very careful how you pieced together a story to ensure that we were not altering the story by creative editing.

    Sadly, the norm today is to be the first one to get it out on the air, regardless if the facts have not been even remotely validated. Creative editing to substantiate the media owner’s political ideology is pretty much the mantra at Fox.

    Okay, I’ll stop waxing on about the days of yore – pretty soon I’ll start sounding like my parents and walking 50 uphill to school, both ways, in the pouring rain.

  43. nathanbetz91 says: Nov 17, 2011 6:55 PM

    Every one of those coaches needs to be fired and or sent to prison. Im assuming that If you witness someone getting raped, especially by someone your close to, you will not forget that image. Including the victims face.

Leave a Reply

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