In an email sent to students, McQuery says “You know me” and that the “Grand Jury got it wrong”, that he made calls to the police and “stopped” the abuse he saw “not physically, but I made sure it was stopped”. The problem with this new development is that is not what McQuery said in testimony to the Grand Jury. If he had, such remarks would have been a part of the presentment, which it is not. The quick and seemingly contradictory statement made by McQuery is application of the old and reliable CYA code (Cover Your Ass). It’s also a statement that is made after the fact that does good to clear his own failure to communicate with the proper authorities after witnessing such a deed. I find it interesting, again reflecting upon the presentment, that suddenly McQuery did things differently when that is not what he testified to before the Grand Jury is fallible enough to warrant his firing as well.

Please note that in the presentment, emergency calls to the University Police as well as records from that period of time reveals no police were ever notified. This is not the Grand Jury’s doing, where they merely acted on dependable testimony. They did subpoena those records, which serves as hard copy evidence of the complacency of staff members who knew of the incident from McQuery, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. The Grand Jury also subpoenaed the records of Welfare and Children’s Services and the absence of notification of any Penn State official or graduate assistant is quite telling. The quick, “I didn’t do it” doesn’t hold water as the Grand Jury made the findings of subpoenaed information clear in their presentment. Does that mean now, in light of McQuery’s abject denials that he did nothing after the fact, that the graduate assistant should also lose his job as Paterno, Curley, Schults, and Spanier have?

Yes, yes it does. The power of the one phone call necessary to alert police to the crime of pedophilia was not wielded by anyone at the University. The fact that he “didn’t physically stop it, but made sure it stopped’ is in direct conflict with his testimony to the Grand Jury. Perjury is lying under oath in a manner where one’s lie can be debunked with factual actuality. If Curley and Schultz must be tried after charges of perjury are pressed, this email commentary by McQuery certainly qualifies as perjury also and those remarks should make his testimony to the Grand Jury not credible. So in his own words in the email, he also states that the “Grand Jury got it wrong” which is indicative of having relevant information and failing to testify about it or simply the fact that he failed to tell the Grand Jury that he “went to police” as the evidence of police logs never recorded any such report. This would, in all logical definition, make McQuery a fallible witness and therefore incredible. However, in an effort to save one’s career, an email with incriminating evidence contrary to his testimony is evidence that should be used when indicting McQuery for the same failures that got Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier fired from their positions. Yet the email even begs more questions than it answers as a bit of incrimination and falsehoods exist within its contents.

He said that he “didn’t physically stop it, but made sure it stopped” is an interesting bit of information that should have been explored a little more by the Grand Jury, if it actually was included in his testimony to them. It was not. However, how does one stop pedophilia sex without doing so “physically”? Exactly how does that work? Did McQuery watch until it was over and then say something? Did McQuery’s presence do enough to stop it and he said something? Or did McQuery simply run out of the shower room and immediately call his father instead of the appropriate authorities exactly as he testified to the Grand Jury? Obviously, without evidence of the actual reporting made by any Penn State official, someone is lying and I can tell you undoubtedly that it was not the Grand Jury. If McQuery’s claims are truthful, the record of his phone call to police would have been identified as evidence to indicate that some kind of action was made. It was not, thus resulting in Victims 3-11. McQuery’s responsibility to call the proper authorities was unfulfilled, therefore evidence to the contrary of his statements in the email have the full ring of truth.

If I was abused in such a manner, I would file civil cases against all the parties involved. McQuery, Schultz, Curley, Spanier and McQuery’s father would be listed as defendants mainly because the whole of them, in large part, did nothing about the abuse and in fact did much to cover it up. If my son or daughter called me to tell me that he witnessed sexual abuse of a minor anywhere, doesn’t matter where, I would call the police as soon as I got off the phone. No matter what, there is no excuse for not going to the police or other authorities about the sexual abuse of a minor. Regardless of how one paints the circumstances. Regardless of how and where it happened. It is my responsibility to report it and both McQuery and his father failed to do so along with the rest of the parties involved. It makes them directly responsible for failing to act on the behalf of Victim 2 who is a minor child and failure to prevent other victims of Sandusky. Instead of dealing with it by contacting proper authorities, the officials involved chose to restrict him from using athletic buildings and bringing minors to the college. The ones who could have made a larger impact on denying Sandusky more victims remained quiet and complacent. McQuery, and his failure to act, is as responsible as anyone else who knew what was going on to report them as what they are doing is against the law.

It begs the question: Did McQuery actually give details to his supervisors and officials of the attack, or did he downplay it for the sake of the University? Did McQuery, upon meeting with Paterno, fail to give accurate details? Is McQuery less credible in light of the blatant lie in his email to players? Does the evidence that no one called police or the Department of Welfare and Children Services remain contrary to what one person is saying? He did not accurately tell Paterno what he saw, disabling Paterno from properly reporting the issue beyond his supervisor as he thought was the law. This is wrong, but it is exactly what Paterno was thinking. McQuery gave information with details to Curley and Schultz, who quickly swept it under the rug. The answer of all the questions seemingly directs us to the Sandusky trial, in which if he lies again, he will be deemed incredible by any jury that has two neurons in their head. Yet still, it raises another curiosity that remains unexplored.

Did McQuery, in his capacity, fail to give Paterno the detailed encounter that he “saw” in a bid to eventually take his job? Could it be that McQuery needed to rid himself of competition to get a head coach deal from the University? Doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious that after the fact he claims to have told Paterno details, a man of obviously high enough caliber who would notify proper authorities, that Paterno did go to his supervisor and the VP of Finance and Business about “inappropriate touching” when McQuery says that he told him about the rape? Does it seem odd to you, in light of his testimony and the reaction of Penn State’s Board of Trustees, that an email attempting to clear his name from being complacent comes out as there is a vacuum in the athletic department? Isn’t it also interesting that he is placed on “administrative leave” instead of being fired rightfully for failing to report sexual abuse of a minor to authorities? Isn’t it interesting that he was convincing enough for the Grand Jury to find him credible, yet he notes that they “got it wrong” after being placed on leave. This is interesting in many ways because it really does appear that McQuery set himself up quite nicely to take over for Paterno. Now his little plan is swirling down the toilet and in a “Hail Mary” maneuver of sending out an email directly contrasting actual Grand Jury testimony places him in a new chair of perjury instead of as Athletic Director.

Penn State would be wise to fire this man too, thus ending any more suspicious activities to line himself up for the job of a lifetime…a job he neither deserves or will ever be truly qualified for.