Update 4:20 p.m.: After McQueary testified that he had given a full account to two Penn State officials of what he witnessed happening between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State locker room, a judge ruled that those two officials should stand trial for perjury. The administrators, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, are accused of lying to a grand jury about the seriousness of what McQueary reported to them. "Curley and Schultz told the grand jury that they remembered McQueary reporting only something inappropriate, like wrestling, but nothing as serious as rape," writes the Associated Press. McQueary's testimony to the contrary today was enough to merit a trial, the judge said, but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to convict them.
Original post: Mike McQueary, eye-witness to one of Jerry Sandusky's alleged rapes, took the stand today in a hearing for two other Penn State officials to give his first public account of exactly he says he did (and did not) see happened in the team's locker room one 2002 night. But despite reporters best efforts, McQueary's has refused to comment on what he saw since the grand jury report that started the whole scandal came out -- until today. During primary hearings for ex-Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and ex-vice president Gary Schultz, arrested on their own changes of perjury and failure to report a crime in the fallout of the Sandusky case, McQuery offered his account, as the AP reports:
McQueary said he has never described what he saw as anal rape or anal intercourse and couldn't see Sandusky's genitals, but that "it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on."
Under cross examination by an attorney for Curley, McQueary reiterated that he had not seen Sandusky penetrating or fondling the boy but was nearly certain he knew an assault happened in part because the two were standing so close and Sandusky's arms were wrapped around the youth.
He said he peeked into the shower several times and that the last time he looked in, Sandusky and the boy had separated. He said he didn't say anything, but "I know they saw me. They looked directly in my eye, both of them."
How does this compare to what he told the grand jury? According to its report, McQueary "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistent was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him." So, as the grand jury tells it, there was no ambiguity with regard to whether or not a rape was taking place, while today "he wasn't 100 percent sure it was intercourse." Those in Happy Valley may also be interested in how McQuery says Joe Paterno reacted to the 2002 incident when he told him the day following the alleged rape:
He said he did not give Paterno explicit details of what he believed he'd seen, saying he wouldn't have used terms like sodomy or anal intercourse out of respect for the longtime coach.
He said Paterno told him he'd "done the right thing" by reporting the encounter. The head coach appeared shocked and saddened and slumped back in his chair, McQueary said.