Skip to content

Report: McQueary not consulted for Freeh report

Mike McQueary AP

By now you probably know the story. The Freeh report on Penn State and Jerry Sandusky will be released at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning — here’s the URL for it in case you’re interested — and the possibility of many, many PSU admins coming under fire is very, very real.

The investigation supposedly contains interviews from hundreds of current and former university employees. Apparently, not one of  them is former assistant coach Mike McQueary. Fight On State reports that McQueary, despite multiple offers to speak with investigators, was never asked to contribute with any testimony.

McQueary was a central figure in the Sandusky scandal and testified on the second day of the former PSU defensive coordinator’s trial in June. McQueary claims in the original grand jury testimony that he walked in on Sandusky molesting a young boy.

However, McQueary’s story, from what he allegedly saw to how he initially handled the situation, has changed multiple times over the past several months. Whether it was a question of credibility, or if there was simply no need for further questioning, isn’t clear.

But McQueary’s testimony was enough to convict Sandusky on four counts of child-sex abuse related to Victim 2, including a felony. Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts total.

Permalink 16 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
16 Responses to “Report: McQueary not consulted for Freeh report”
  1. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 11, 2012 6:56 PM

    For this “full,broad and sweeping” investigation. It seems almost impossible that they didn’t need any information from McQueary. Makes you wonder what else wasn’t important

  2. corvusrex96 says: Jul 11, 2012 6:59 PM

    No need to question him, unless you want yet another another version of what he saw.

  3. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 11, 2012 7:08 PM

    True. He is a worm

  4. beavertonsteve says: Jul 11, 2012 7:09 PM

    It seems almost impossible that they didn’t need any information from McQueary. Makes you wonder what else wasn’t important
    Sure, they could take his statement, then they could have him change it around completely three more times to keep in line with his previous accounts.

  5. surly1n1nd1anapol1s says: Jul 11, 2012 9:17 PM

    Louis Freeh missed a clue? Shocker.

  6. dirtyharry1971 says: Jul 11, 2012 9:36 PM

    yet another reason we shouldnt believe any report that is coming from a university that tried to hide the truth in the first place. Shut them Down now!

  7. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 11, 2012 9:39 PM

    Hey dirtyharry make up your mind. You believe whatever crucifies paterno. But the investigation is a sham? Buy all of it or none of it. In your case whatever part satisfies your case to shut them down. Like shutting down a university is even a possibility

  8. jimmy53 says: Jul 11, 2012 9:56 PM

    Danny… is dead on with this one. I, for one, was really hoping for a strong and complete impartial review of the events. This just can’t happen without an interview of a figure as central as McQuearey, especially with the inconsistencies in his testimonies.

  9. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 11, 2012 10:53 PM

    That’s all I’ve been trying to say. That’s why I don’t believe anything I hear leaked. Emails, disgruntled employees etc. it’s like when a drug study is sponsored by the drug company. It’s results will be whatever they choose them to be. It’s a crying shame but I dont think we will ever get to the bottom of it.

  10. jimbo75025 says: Jul 12, 2012 12:15 AM

    Dead DA who had previously decided not to prosecute. AG who sat on this for years and is now governor. Sorry, but this whole mess goes much further than a football coach. Any “full” investigation would most likely shake the state to its core. As things are, this report is going to put everything on a few convenient people. How do you conduct a full investigation without even interviewing the guy whose report set off the entire chain of events?

  11. psunick says: Jul 12, 2012 1:00 AM

    could not agree with you more, jimbo

  12. psunick says: Jul 12, 2012 1:05 AM

    there’s way too much money at stake. Do you have any idea how much direct revenue Penn State delivers to the state of Pennsylvania? Ancillary revenue?

    Indeed, this crime should shake the entire structure of the state to its core. But it will not happen.

  13. psunick says: Jul 12, 2012 1:07 AM

    It’s far too fiscally convenient to place the blame on the usual suspects.

    And may one of them rest in peace.

  14. dcroz says: Jul 12, 2012 7:33 AM

    Does anyone know if there is currently a federal investigation being conducted? Because I agree with those posters above and in other threads that don’t believe for a second that this report is going to give us the true, unvarnished picture as to what happened and who bears what portion of the blame. Only a genuinely impartial investigation will have enough credibility to make anyone believe that the full truth (or as close it is possible to achieve that) has been revealed.

    I also agree that these “leaks” are being done intentionally so as to get the general public moving in the direction that the BoT wants it to go, namely, to place most of the blame on Paterno since he is no longer around to give his side of the story. Mind you, I’m not absolving Paterno of blame in this matter; I do feel that he did not want to believe his friend was capable of such hideous actions and that preserving his legacy was his overriding concern, up to and including getting win number 409. But he also makes a convenient scapegoat for those still alive and kicking to relieve themselves of responsibility and not become Sandusky’s roommates.

    And one last thing: as I have maintained before, I believe that there is more to the Second Mile charity than just helping disadvantaged kids. I think it could be the cover for a lot of political corruption involving many or most of the principals in this case, and that the real reason they failed to report Sandusky was the fear that he would blow the lid off of it if he were to be imprisoned. My question is whether the Freeh investigators looked into the charity as closely as it deserves; if there is little mention of it in the report, then I think we can safely say the answer is “no.”

  15. al91206 says: Jul 12, 2012 12:46 PM

    “But McQueary’s testimony was enough to convict Sandusky ”

    Yes, let’s paint McQuery a hero and forget that he saw a rape of a young boy in progress and basically did nothing but run to tell his daddy. Then he continued to work for the person he saw raping this young boy, never questioning what happened.

    To me, McQuery will always be a coward. He has never apologized to the unknown victim even though that young man today deserves MUCH more than a simple apology.

  16. gmen1987 says: Jul 13, 2012 10:15 AM

    In case if you idiots waited or actually read the Freeh report, you would see that reason McQueary was not interviewed was at the request of the Pennsylvania’s Attourney General’s office. In other words, McQueary is still a potential witness for the cases of the Penn State officials and perhaps other future cases where charges haven’t been pressed yet such as Spanier.

Leave a Reply

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