Lester Munson with ESPN prepared an article on August 14, 2012 that provides some some details on what may occur in the  Curly and Shultz court case this Thursday. This is a recommended read for all.


4 thoughts on “Case for, against Penn State execs

  1. Re: “The incident was so appalling, the prosecutors will argue, that McQueary fled the building, called his father and, even though he was a graduate assistant on the lowest rung of the coaching ladder, vaulted the chain of command and went straight to head coach Joe Paterno to report what happened. How could the episode have been so frightening to McQueary, the prosecutors will ask, and so benign to Schultz and Curley?”

    McQueary did not find it sufficiently appalling, and/or was not sufficiently sure of what he saw, to call 911 instead of his father to report a violent crime in progress that merited an emergency police response.


    1. Add to that, McQueary seemed fine with the results of Schulz and Curley’s actions, with Sandusky still using the facilities, and Sandusky still being involved with children at TSM. And McQueary himself attended a Sandusky charity event in the years following. None of those actions suggest he was certain that a heinous crime was committed. I’m certainly not exonerating Sandusky here. He WAS a monster. But what McQueary saw and his level of certainty when he reported it is the issue for the PSU exec’s culpability in this. McQueary’s actions in the years following 2001 don’t suggest he was certain of anything, and he was the one in the locker room that night! Those actions (and inactions) by McQueary immediately after 2001 suggest his certainty changed in hindsight, especially after being called by a grand jury investigating sex abuse by Sandusky.

      And one ironic twist …. The prosecutors are basically refuting one of Freeh’s central pieces of evidence about the corrupt culture of fear in the football program by stressing how low on the totem pole McQueary was but didn’t fear going to the top, Joe Paterno. Yet Freeh grasps onto pure speculation by the janitors about what they THOUGHT Joe would do to them IF they reported it. Give me a break. An actual event (McQueary reporting what he saw) versus obvious excuse-making speculation, and Freeh uses the speculation as the stronger piece of evidence regarding the culture of the football program. How the media lets that contradiction slide is mind boggling.


  2. Yeah, the rest of the article is well-written however this statement appears to contradict himself. If it was so appalling, he would have immediately called 911, not decided to consult his father. In addition, Munson perhaps has a point about vaulting the chain of command and going straight to Paterno. However, Munson probably does not account for the fact that McQueary was probably not your normal graduate assistant on the lowest rung of the coaching ladder. While certainly he had low seniority as a coach, he was also a former Starting Quarterback on the team. I would assume based on that, he had a much better working relationship then someone else lower on the totem pole and thus would be more comfortable going to Paterno.


  3. What McQueary saw and what he communicated have always been critical in this case. Let’s not forget that during the Sandusky trial, the jury found Sandusky “not guilty” of the most serious count against victim #2. This was after asking to rehear both McQueary and Dranov’s testimony. Seemingly, they were struggling to find beyond a reasonable doubt that McQueary had really witnessed a rape given his conflicting accounts of what happened.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s