Mike McQueary testified Friday for two hours at the preliminary hearing of athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz. I didn’t think that I could be any more surprised or disgusted than I already have been since the arrest of Jerry Sandusky but, what do you know…I was. After all, this was some of what we heard of his two hours on the witness stand:
“I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a boy with his arms wrapped around him. I said I heard slapping sounds. I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on. … There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers and that it was severe acts and that it was wrong and over the line.”
A Business Insider reporter tweeted these quotes from McQueary’s testimony:
“I cannot sit here and be 100 percent sure there was intercourse. But I believe Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse with him.”
“I did not see insertion, nor was there any verbiage, screaming or yelling.”
“It appeared that Jerry was directly behind the boy and the boy had his hands up against the wall.”
“I believe Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of sexual intercourse with him'”
“I know they saw me, they looked directly in my eyes.”
After McQueary spotted Sandusky doing whatever he was doing, he loudly slammed his locker door. He said the two separated and were approximately five feet apart. Sandusky and the boy both looked McQueary in the eye, he said, adding that Sandusky had a blank look on his face.
McQueary testified that he met with Joe Paterno the following day but said he did not go into detail about what he had witnessed. He did not call it sodomy or intercourse, out of respect for Paterno, he said. As Cory Giger of the Altoona Mirror and ESPN radio’s Sports Central live-tweeted, McQueary told Paterno that what he saw in the shower was “outrageous and terrible.” The coach, however, told McQueary, “I’m sorry you had to see that, it’s terrible.” Paterno said that McQueary had “done the right thing” in telling him.
Paterno, it was revealed Friday, told the grand jury that he did not immediately contact his superiors because he didn’t want to interfere with their weekend plans. So considerate. He did, however, call Curley on Sunday and stated, “We have a problem.” Anywho, fast forward about 10 days, when Curley called McQueary to follow up on the incident. Ten days.
McQueary testified that he told both administrators that what he observed was “extremely sexual.” When he left that meeting, McQueary said he had the impression that both men had taken his report seriously. He also explained that he did not contact the police because, in his mind, he was talking to the police. Schultz, in his role as vice president, was in charge of the university police.
When he testified before the grand jury, Curley said he couldn’t recall the conversation with McQueary in 2002 about the shower incident. Is that seriously what you’re going with? You don’t recall the conversation? I can remember a far less significant conversation from 20 years ago, for crying out loud.
But it gets better! Curley recalls discussing the situation (what situation, I wonder?) with Sandusky, who at first denied being in the shower with a boy. (Um, guilty, anyone?) He later changed his story. The reason I say this speaks to Sandusky’s guilt (other than the obvious) is because Sandusky does not seem to “get” that any of his behavior is inappropriate. So, if he really was doing nothing wrong other than showering after a workout, why would he lie about it? He still doesn’t get that it’s wrong, even now.
When Schultz testified before the grand jury, he said, “I had the impression it was inappropriate. I had the feeling it was some king of wrestling activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed a young boy’s genitals.” Isn’t grabbing a child’s genitals a crime? Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s the type of crime that you’re obligated to report.
He oversaw the university police department, for crying out loud! He doesn’t know that a man grabbing a child’s genitals is a crime? Did he think that was something that he should have, at least, looked into? Nah. He has testified that he never sought the identity of the boy in the shower. Wouldn’t that be a critical aspect of an investigation into inappropriate behavior? Not in Happy Valley.
Several months after the incident, McQueary said Paterno asked him if he was OK. That’s an odd, insignificant detail to mention. If that’s true, then why would Paterno ask McQueary months later if he was OK about observing “horseplay”? Because it wasn’t horseplay…it was molestation, according to McQueary. Which would make it completely reasonable for Paterno to ask McQueary how he was handling it, months later. But I digress.
Following the incident, McQueary noted that security cameras were installed in the building. What does that tell you? Did administrators think nothing had occurred in the locker room, hence they needed surveillance to monitor more nothing? Come on. That’s just silly. Did they need security cameras to monitor activity that was, at the very least, inappropriate? Or, maybe the security cameras were installed as a deterrent. That’s a very plausible explanation.
McQueary’s father, John, the first individual who heard about Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, also testified Friday. He said he spoke with Schultz, who told him there had been “noise levels” about Sandusky in the past; “More or less in general said [they’d] never been able to really unearth anything or sink our teeth into anything that was something substantial.” Um. What.
Paterno did not testify (possibly because of his health, as he’s undergoing chemo for what doctors are saying is treatable lung cancer) but his grand jury testimony was read in the hearing. At one point, Paterno said there “may have been” a rumor about Sandusky but he didn’t know and couldn’t remember. Really, JoePa? Yeah, I don’t think so. Paterno knows (or, should I say, knew) everything that goes on in State College. Period. That’s been established. So, there were “rumors” about Sandusky’s proclivities and Paterno wasn’t in that loop? Uh huh. Would that maybe be the reason why Sandusky retired so unexpectedly in 1999?
Some highlights of Schultz’s testimony include him stating, “I don’t know what sexual conduct’s definition is.” OK then. He also said that the university turned over the investigation of the 2002 incident to the same agency that investigated the 1998 incident. He also couldn’t recall which administrator (we know that it was no investigator) contacted “the agency” and, after being asked several times, could not identify the agency in question. When the grand jury asked Schultz about an adult grabbing a young boy’s genitals, he responded, “I don’t know if it’s criminal.”
Attorney Karl Rominger has joined the Sandusky defense team, in grand fashion. Not to be outdone by Amendola, he made this startling statement last week to Harrisburg’s ABC-27 News:
“Some of these kids don’t have basic hygiene skills. Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills, like how to put soap on their body.”
Really now. So, exactly what is the connection between juvenile delinquency and cleanliness, Mr. Rominger? They learned basic hygiene when they were little, long before becoming juvenile delinquents. So, delinquency makes them neglect basic hygiene? What an offensive and ridiculous claim. I almost hope these two engage in one-upsmanship throughout the legal process. It should be entertaining, at the very least.
So, word on the street is that Jerry Sandusky helped coach the Juniata College football team, alongside former head coach Carmen Felus. Mind you, this was after Sandusky reportedly FAILED a background check and after three “distinct orders” from senior officials that Sandusky not be permitted around the team.
Let me back up. Sandusky applied for a volunteer coaching position at Juniata College in May 2010 (he worked there briefly before joining the staff at Penn State, in 1967). He did not disclose that he was under investigation for child molestation and was rejected for the position. That didn’t stop him from showing up at practices, coaches meetings, and games, however. When he was spotted in a coaches’ press box at a road game, Juniata’s athletic director reportedly confronted him and stressed the college’s position on Sandusky’s involvement in their football program.
Two Juniata football players recently told CBS-21 reporters that Sandusky was actively coaching the team in 2010, in spite of his application being rejected. Players have also said they found it odd that Sandusky would sit in the parking lot prior to practices. “He would sit out in front of the child development center and we wound wonder, “Why is he sitting right there (in his car)?” Two players also recalled seeing Sandusky holding the hand of a young boy. “I’m thinking that (at the time) it might be his grandson or another Second Mile kid; I’m not sure,” one of the players said. “When I think about it, it was very strange because (Sandusky) wasn’t on the practice field the first day he showed up.”
As for Carmen Felus, he’s currently employed by the University of Tennessee at Martin.
On Saturday afternoon, the Altoona Mirror reported that a fight took place in the Penn State locker room following Saturday’s practice. Starting quarterback Matt McGloin and receiver Curtis Drake were involved in an altercation that landed McGloin in the hospital, after suffering a seizure and possible concussion. No word on what led to the fracas.
One thing is for certain: Penn State can’t take much more hammering to its reputation and image. “Success with honor” is supposed to be the foundation of the football team and the university as a whole…players breaking out into fisticuffs in the locker room doesn’t do much to help repair the damage that’s been done by the Sandusky scandal.