FORMER PSU QB & COACH MIKE McQUEARY WANTS A BIG PAYDAY.

MIKE McQUEARY says “I Would Do Anything for Joe Paterno”

The Whistleblower Trial this week is the last time Mike McQueary can prove his high regard for Joe. It will be covered by significant numbers of the media and Mike can finally do what he should have done in Nov. 2011 by:

• Telling the media to tell the world "I did not tell Joe of “anal rape”.
• Telling the media that Frank Fina and Linda Kelly completely misrepresented his words in the Presentment Lie that ruined Joe's reputation when they wrote:

(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. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno. 

And if Mike truly wants to help his Alma Mater and his community.

• Mike can publicly denounce the Office of Attorney General that claims to seek justice for victims, for failing children by never investigating the Second Mile Charity
• Mike can demand the media hold the PA OAG accountable for failing the child victims of The Second Mile - an agency they were responsible for monitoring - and State agencies that should have exposed Sandusky long before 2001.  

IS THERE A CHANCE TO IMPACT THE NARRATIVE? A CALL TO ACTION.               

Anyone with TV or Internet in Nov. 2011 could not escape the images of Joe Paterno surrounded by cameras at his home or the PSU football practice facility in the wake of the malicious premeditated libel deliberately designed to evoke outrage in a language that inspired maximum media coverage. The Presentment Victim 2 stated:

(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. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno. 

Yes, this act of malicious contempt for truth and justice did involve the misuse and abuse of Mike McQueary. Yes, he was victimized by the State of PA in the form of Frank Fina and AG Linda Kelly. Kelly and Fina are certainly to blame. But Mike McQueary could easily see what was happening to the man he to this day says he loves - the coach he still says he would do anything to support. McQueary has said those words to friends who have spoken to him. Maybe Mike is capable of honoring Joe deep down but we need to reach that desire in him.

Comments below and on the long thread beneath the post of this article on Facebook Group WE intend to vote out the Penn State Board of Trustees include remarks from PSU people who say this:

I knew Mike. He was always a liar, who lied to please others, impress others, and inflate his own ego. A bullshitter, little lies here, there and everywhere. When the news first broke, my mind immediately went back to him being a pathological liar, who I didn't think ever even realized he was making shit up.

and 

 My wife has known him since middle school ... I recall her informing me in no uncertain terms that he was nothing but a rat fink that would say or do anything to get what he wanted... isn't funny how this case has proved that out?

We do not need these reports to know Mike has a problem with TRUTH. His 'evolving' under oath testimonies that have changed with time bear that out in his own words. And as one comment says:

"His use of the phrase "I would have said..." with regard to his reports to Curley & Schultz, indicates to me that he didn't know or remember much at all, or that he didn't report those things at all; however, if he had reported them, "He would have said..." There was only one instance where MM added, "I did say that." 

The content below contains testimonies that prove Mike embellished and twisted the truth. But even these variations, never say what AG Linda Kelly's Presentment says was said. 

Paterno was under attack as the person alerted by McQueary that Sandusky was seen anally raping a 10-year-old boy in a PSU shower and Joe only told AD Tim Curley. 

Mike knew that. Mike could see all that media at Joe's house and at the practice facility. 

ALL MIKE HAD TO DO WAS GO TO JOE'S HOUSE AND SAY "I NEVER SAW ANAL RAPE-NEVER SAID I SAW ANAL RAPE-AND NEVER TOLD JOE I SAW ANAL RAPE"

Mike could have told that TRUTH to the media at the practice facility and at that point in time it would have made all the difference in the media narrative. That would have made AG Linda Kelly a liar and kept Joe Paterno's honor intact. 
  

But Mike did not have the will, the moral fiber, the courage, the love of Coach and Alma Mater, the respect for his community and neighbors, or the simple common decency - to tell the media, his friends and neighbors, or the world that he did not say what AG Linda Kelly wrote in that presentment. 

Mike was too concerned with his image as a coward who ran while a boy suffered rape to do anything for the Coach he says he loved and revered. And the strange thing is he would have redeemed his tarnished image as a coward by doing the right thing and saving the reputation of his coach. He did not see anal rape and run. He was uncertain of what he saw and conflicted by what he thought he heard, imagined, and visualized.

Mike gathered the players in his charge to tell them he had once been abused and that he stopped whatever was happening prior to leaving. He was willing to challenge the Presentment on that to salvage his own self-respect but unwilling to challenge the Presentment lie that he saw "anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. ....and reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno."  

Mike has never told the Media "I did not see anal rape and did not tell Joe I saw anal rape" and he will suffer in this prison of his own making until he does that.

That's where you come in. If you live within driving distance of the courtroom where the McQueary trial is being held you have one last chance to confront Mike and make him know that he will only regain some semblance of respect and esteem if he uses this moment in time with the media assembled to finally TELL THAT ONE TRUTH. 

If you know Mike or someone who does a copy of this article should be sent to him, to his father, to Dr. Dranov and the medical business in State College where they work. Mike should know what is being said and how he can alter the narrative and his own image by finally just saying these words to media. "The Linda Kelly Presentment was a LIE. I did not see anal rape and never told Joe I saw anal rape". 

Mike could say "What I thought I was seeing was not clear. Time was too short and vision too obscured. Due to the slapping sounds, I visualized something sexual between adults so I believed I was seeing molestation but in the 3 to 6-second view of Sandusky's back I could not be certain and that was clear to AG Kelly and the Grand Jury." Mike should say "AG Linda Kelly lied and the Grand Jury presentment was a lie."

Now the trial for Sandusky is over and he was found not guilty of the anal rape charge. What Mike says now about that charge and the Presentment will have no bearing on any case. The only effect it could have is to help rehabilitate Joe Paterno's reputation. 

I personally believe he should also come clean about what he did not tell Tim and Gary but he is trying to make money off that lie so I doubt he will change it while a chance exists. But he can do Paterno a great service and he has said he "would do anything" for Joe. 

This is one last opportunity where Mike McQueary has to appear in public. One last chance to confront the lies of Linda Kelly and Frank Fina. One more chance to redeem the good name of Joe Paterno.  

Now that Linda Kelly is out of office and Frank Fina has been exposed as the porn spreading by email king, there can be no repercussions for Mike McQueary. Mike can tell tell the world whatever Fina did to pressure him into not revealing that lie.  

Believe me - the world outside State College still believes Mike saw a boy being anally raped and told Joe he saw a boy being anally raped. This could be a chance to put a dent in that perception. The whole world isn't watching but enough media should be on hand to cover this and it could touch off a spate of articles and broadcasts.  

by Barry Bozeman - UT (Tenn) Grad with no ties to PSU. Liberal Democrat UT fan born on campus - attended UT games as an infant -active in campus politics as class and fraternity president, with no shred of bias toward PSU or Paterno. Like Pat Summitt at UT, the winningest coach in college basketball history with a statue to boot, Joe was an iconic figure. Pat became the face of UT like Joe was the face of PSU. I created this SMSS site because I saw a grievous injustice at work from a rabid media anxious to bring down a legend they worked so hard to create. 

MIKE McQUEARY WANTS MILLIONS OF PSU DOLLARS  Does he deserve it?
Does McQueary deserve enmity and scorn as a coward who failed to protect a defenseless child? OR Is Mike McQueary a college football gambling cheat who bet on PSU football games as a player and coach losing thousands of dollars who sees a way out of his destroyed career as a coach nobody will ever hire? Or both? Or is he the deserving "whistleblower" maligned and cast off by unscrupulous PSU administrators?

The eve of the McQueary "whistleblower" trial is an opportunity to take a fresh look at a massive store of information. This is some old and new information with a new fresh take from my unbiased perception.  

This repetition of events may seem excessive to some. Going over the same ground becomes an exercise in futility as we seek an answer to how this could have happened to PSU and iconic Coach Paterno. If one thing seemed certain in Happy Valley, it would be the lasting unsullied reputation of the Hall of Fame Coach. The shock of the events of Nov 2011 stunned many PSU people into numb submission as Gov. Corbett and John Surma ambushed the Board of Trustees. 

That November 2011 Presentment by Attorney General Linda Kelly, with some damning testimony concerning a former coach in a staff locker room in 2002 (or was it 2001?) was incomprehensible. 

LOCKER ROOM LOCATION

With all the available testimony from depositions, hearings and the Sandusky trial - things said by Mike McQueary, things Dr. Dranov claimed he said, and the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz versions - it is very difficult to imagine how McQueary can be considered credible. His versions of what happened one night some 14 (or was it 15*) years ago have changed often and have been related and misrelated too many times to count. 

*In fact, the prosecution had the date wrong by 13 months in the original Presentment:

Mike McQueary’s story is changing again. 6/20/12 Sara Ganim 

"In court paperwork filed Monday, prosecutors say the alleged sexual incident the former assistant Penn State football coach claims to have seen between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. Instead, they wrote, new evidence shows it happened on 2/9/2001, about 13 months earlier."

McQueary testified to hearing " rhythmic sexual slapping sounds" in a staff locker room one winter night. And then, depending on which version of events now on the record from McQueary and family friend Dr. Dranov that you believe, McQueary either: 1) saw nothing but "heard sounds", 2) saw "something sexual" or "something extremely sexual", or 3) saw a "sexual assault" by Sandusky on a boy of about 10.

HARRIS LIES PSU REP DIES 

PA Attorney General Linda Kelly stood on a stage in Harrisburg with her posters of Jerry Sandusky - former PSU coach who left in 1999, along with two hapless PSU administrators, Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz, who she accused with these images of equal culpability with a serial pedophile. Sandusky, the creator of The Second Mile charity, was employed by TSM when this alleged assault occurred. This damning account was supposedly based on the words of Mike McQueary, and Linda Kelly presented this as Mike's account:

(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 assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught."

This staged AG Kelly news conference in Harrisburg touched off a firestorm of interest and a tsunami of media speculation. Initially, a tremendous amount of anger and accusation was pointed at Mike McQueary. How could a strong young former PSU QB watch a 10-year-old being anally raped by an old former coach and run away? Then the media focused outrage on the 'football culture of omnipotent demigod Paterno' and the administrators singled out by AG Kelly for charges. 

This was a PRESENTMENT I thought. Do these media people not get that a Presentment is the State laying out, in the most damaging terms possible, charges based on testimony never subjected to cross-examination, exculpatory evidence, or legal representation? Nor was it presented in full quotes - only a summary of the prosecution's chosen interpretation stated in the most damaging possible terms. I wrote this in An Outsiders View Nov. 2011.  

I was captivated, and I did not buy the AG's version of events despite the media's willingness to do so. But then on 11/9/11, the PSU Board of Trustees, threw iconic Joe Paterno under the bus with the PSU administrators in the most stunningly stupid decision imaginable. Did they know something I did not? Well that's crazy I thought, of course, they did. 

Wasn't Gov Corbett the former AG part of that Board? He would know what was coming. 

Some inside information from Corbett made this move to eliminate Joe and eventually the single member of the BOT who stood up for his administrators and the coach the smart thing to do. I guess I'm just not that smart, I still had doubts and questions. Discussions concerning these events went on for days on PSU sports forums where my participation was almost constant. 

But enough of the past - after 5 years of immersion in this situation we come to today and this attempt by Mike McQueary to wrest 5 million dollars from Penn State. 

SKIP THIS IF EASILY OFFENDED BUT TOUGH QUESTIONS ARE REQUIRED

Imagine yourself as the attorney with Mike McQueary on the stand and the reputation of Joe and PSU are at stake.

MIKE McQUEARY DESCRIPTION 10 YEAR OLD BOY
HEAD TO PECTORAL MUSCLES OF MAN

Each question below is already on the record testimony by Mike McQueary and you are the attorney asking these questions. 

ATTORNEY:So the 10-year-old boy was so small the "top of his head only reached Sandusky's pectoral muscles" ?

MM: YES - 

ATTORNEY: The boy's feet were on the floor while he was standing upright with hands on the wall? 

MM: YES -- 

ATTORNEY: The man you have identified as Jerry Sandusky was standing behind him?

MM YES

ATTORNEY: With his feet on the floor and standing upright behind him with arms around the boy?

MM yes 

ATTORNEY: To you the boy appeared to be suffering what you said is "some kind of intercourse" from a 6' 200 plus pound former football coach?

MM: YES - 

ATTORNEY: There is no noise - no sound from either the man or the boy"?

MM: NO - 

ATTORNEY A small 10-year-old boy was suffering intercourse from a big old former coach and he was not crying out in pain or anguish from being sodomized and humiliated?

MM  No 

ATTORNEY But even when you observed a 10-year-old defenseless boy being sexually assaulted by an old football coach naked in that shower you did not go to that poor boy's aid and get the old coach off of him?

MM no

ATTORNEY You did not even let the boy know you were there if he needed your help?

MM no 

ATTORNEY Instead you turned away and went to put some shoes in your locker?

MM yes

ATTORNEY - And in order to get the coach to stop assaulting the boy all you could do is slam a locker door?

MM yes 

ATTORNEY - Then after you slam the locker door both the boy and Sandusky look directly in your eyes"? 

MM YES 

ATTORNEY:  Did Sandusky have an erection?

MM Not that I saw

ATTORNEY - And after you were facing and seeing each other there was no fear or distress in the little victim of rape's eyes and face?

MM  no 

ATTORNEY;  This just sodomized victim of a rape did not run to you away from his attacker? He was not crying out in pain and he did not look distressed or fearful when you saw his face? 

MM no 

ATTORNEY;  You said nothing to the boy like - come with me or do you need my help?

MM no 

ATTORNEY - You offered no assistance or comfort to this poor victim?

MM no 

ATTORNEY;  Instead you fled the locker room in distress?

MM well

ATTORNEY; Your inclination was to flee as quickly as possible?

MM yes 

ATTORNEY: So you ran to the nearest telephone to phone for police?

MM no 

ATTORNEY;  You ran to the nearest phone to call a friend or family to come and help?

MM no  I phoned my dad to see if he was home 

ATTORNEY;  So you left this defenseless boy with the monster who you had just seen sodomizing him? 

MM  I made sure it was over

ATTORNEY; How do you know it was over? 

MM  I  i  i  dddd  stutters 

ATTORNEY How could you be certain it would not resume elsewhere or worse that the old former coach might choose to eliminate the only witness - victim who could corroborate your story?

MM  I  I  I ddd ont   stutters 

ATTORNEY; So you ran home to daddy right?

MM yes 

ATTORNEY - And you spoke with your Dad and Dr. Dranov - an old family friend and Doctor who worked with your Dad? 

MM  yes 

ATTORNEY - So you told them you had witnessed an act of sodomy in that locker room?

MM well not exactly 

ATTORNEY; You told them enough so they understood the sexual assault though? 

MM  Well I guess

ATTORNEY And then the 3 of you phoned the police so they could locate the boy and Sandusky so you would know the boy was alive and could get medical care for the rape he had just endured? 

MM no

ATTORNEY - So you could not tell your father and Doctor the horror you just saw in the safe comfortable environment of your family home?  

MM no 

ATTORNEY  But you could tell a 79-year-old football coach about the attack the next morning? You thought an octogenarian would know what you were suggesting about child rape? It didn't take a rocket scientist I think you said to your father, but it would take Sigmund Freakin Freud to figure out how a PSU quarterback turned coach could run out on a helpless child being raped by a twisted pervert like Jerry Sandusky. 

MM well not exactly  

ATTORNEY - And over a week later you were able to tell Tim Curley and Gary Schultz about the intercourse and Sandusky - right? That 10 min meeting was all it took to impress upon them the awful sexual nature of the crime you observed and your cowardly reaction when a boy needed your help? 

MM - well I guess i am a cowardly PSU reputation killing scumbag.

BULLSHIT - pardon my French - unless JS is so poorly endowed his member is the size of a pencil, the pain of forced anal rape would be almost unbearable for a boy that size. Not to mention the simple physics of a man that large behind a boy that small. Sandusky would almost have to be on his knees for the basic geometry of rape to work. 

And I am sorry readers but in my opinion. Mike McQueary is almost worse than the pedophile in this case. It wasn't Joe or Graham, or Tim or Gary who allowed a child rapist to go on raping kids in PA - it was Mike McQueary. 

Tim and Gary cannot be responsible for a failure to read the mind of a young man who was a quarterback and then coach. This isn't some weak minded marginal guy with emotional and mental problems. This is a successful young athlete who led a PSU football team and became an assistant coach. If he could not come out and say in no uncertain terms that he had witnessed a crime - sodomy  on a 10-year-old boy - how would they come to that conclusion from what they knew? They knew Sandusky as an "Angel in Adoption"  Mr family values himself Rick Santorum said so. Sandusky was a friend to disadvantaged kids - a veritable Saint in State College. 

If Mike McQueary's account did not inspire his Doctor or Dad - both mandated reporters for children in their care - to call the police, why would it inspire Curley and Schultz?  It didn't even inspire Dad and the Doctor  to go in search of Sandusky and the victim that night when a rape kit could have been made and a report filed. 

Curley and Schultz were not mandated reporters. Sandusky was not their employee. The only thing that tied Mike's muddled account of something that sounded to them like "inadvertent" touching or horseplay between the founder of The Second Mile Charity and one of his charges (perhaps an adopted son?) a Second Mile boy - and Penn State was the shower's location. They likely considered this former star Quarterback now coach for PSU to be a strong minded stellar citizen who could surely say exactly what he saw. Since he could not they thought he was describing horseplay with possibly some inadvertent touching. 

Like me, they likely could not fathom a PSU Quarterback running away from a boy in distress IF that child was suffering some kind of sexual assault. 
What am I missing here? 

These charges against the PSU three reek of political machinations by Corbett. Right behind Corbett, Surma and the BOT, Mike McQueary is the major reason for the defamation of PSU. And he wants 5 million bucks for his cowardly act?   

 It took me a long time to write this the way it needed to be written. I tried for years to come up with some excuse for this guy. 

Had Mike been a victim at one time? Stories surfaced indicating that was the case. Was he in shock from some flashback memory of abuse? or 
Was he involved in something criminal that might come out if he got involved before 2011? Stories of betting on games and thousands in debt also surfaced. 

In the end. his actions make no sense. How could a football coach so young and strong be intimidated by a naked old former coach and pederast? 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Dr. Dranov worked with Mike's father and when Mike arrived at the family home after "leaving, distraught," his father phoned Dranov to come over to hear about it. Dranov testified under oath that he asked Mike "what did you see"? 

There in the familiar comfort of his family home, Mike could only say what he had heard. "slapping sounds, a young boy peering out of the shower area, an arm pulling him back." Dr. Dranov asked if the boy was fearful or if he appeared to be distressed. Mike said no, and told the Doctor that Sandusky then came out of the shower. 

Enlarge Ask 3 Times

Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times what he had seen between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary failed to say he saw anything. 

What are we to make of this testimony compared to what Attorney General Kelly said? This certainly does not indicate that Mike told his father and Dr. Dranov that he witnessed a heinous rape in the shower that night. 

What happened here? Did Mike McQueary feel guilty for not impressing on Tim and Gary the heinous nature of what he believed, visualized, or imagined but did not actually see? Did he embellish his report to PA investigators to make up for his assumed error back in 2001?

Since we know from Dr. Dranov what was said right after the event does not jive with his later accounts - it seems he has enhanced his memory of events as time has passed. This bit of testimony is interesting in that aspect:

MENTAL IMAGES AND EMBARRASSMENT

McQueary heard the showers and heard what he deemed were sexual slapping sounds so he had these "visualizations" come into his head.  Is that what this is all about? Did he let his imagination get the better of him that night? We cannot make the PSU three victims of Mike's imagination, can we? 

We know the jury in the Sandusky trial returned very few NOT GUILTY verdicts, but one of the few was the count dealing with alleged anal rape in the shower that night. According to the prosecution, McQueary's eyewitness account of what he saw between Sandusky and a boy in a shower in 2001 was the basis for charges against Sandusky in the case known as alleged Victim 2. Counts 7 thru 11 were levied due to McQueary's testimony.

• Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse Verdict: Not guilty. 
• Count 8: Indecent assault Verdict: Guilty. 
• Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors Verdict: Guilty. 
• Count 10: Corruption of minors Verdict: Guilty. 
• Count 11: Endangering welfare of children Verdict: Guilty. 

From these verdicts, we know the jury did not find any Presentment charged anal rape or "deviate sexual

MIRROR REFLECTION

intercourse" evidence to be credible. We can surmise that given the nature of all the other 52 charges, the jury was inclined to see every Sandusky contact with a boy in a shower as indecent, unlawful corruption and endangerment. All that requires is the knowledge that Sandusky and the boy were in that shower alone together. 

Knowing these things to be true is a maddening circumstance for those of us who support Penn State. We know the entire defamation of PSU and Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz depended on a belief in AG Kelly's Presentment of anal rape, and the Board of Trustees' ambush by Gov. Corbett and John Surma in the emergency meeting that ended Joe's career and forced President Spanier to resign. 

My opinion is that Mike McQueary is the one person most responsible for the defamation of PSU, the destruction of Joe Paterno's Legacy, the years lost to Tim, Gary, and Graham Spanier, and the millions of dollars that cost Penn State. McQueary's involvement and failure led to Sandusky's continued abuse of children and perhaps most importantly, made this about PSU instead of The Second Mile and PA State Agencies under Tom Corbett that failed in their duty to protect the children of Pennsylvania. 

Mike McQueary could have  
1) stopped Sandusky that night
2) failing that made it perfectly clear to his father & Dr. Dranov he had witnessed a heinous anal rape so they could have gone directly to police 
3) Told Paterno in no uncertain terms demanding he get police and the AD & VP right then 
4) Told AD Curley & VP Schultz in no uncertain terms and had them get police right then
or 
5) over 10 long years, Feb 2001 -Nov 2011 grown the stones to do the right thing. 

The damage to PSU and Joe could have been avoided. I do not believe for one instant if Joe or Tim or Gary or Graham had been told a true, graphic, undeniable story of rape or even sexual assault or molestation, they would have hesitated for an instant to involve the police. They simply were not told what McQueary now says he saw and said. 

The administrators had to weigh their knowledge of Rick Santorum's "Angel in Adoption" - revered founder of The Second Mile charity with 100's of kids in his care and many adopted children, against an uncertain and unclear account of an accomplished PSU QB and Coach. They had every reason to believe this PSU QB would be capable of telling them about a rape or molestation. When his account seemed to be about "horseplay" and at the worst some "inadvertent touching" of a child who may have been an adopted son or one of many TSM children JS was known to care for, they chose to involve the licensed child psychologist Director of The Second Mile responsible for both the children and THEIR EMPLOYEE JERRY SANDUSKY. 

I believe that is what I or most of us would have done. This is days later and we have no idea who the child might have been. If this big strong PSU QB did not choose to intervene on the spot then what exactly was he saying? His father and his Doctor did not think the situation dire enough to call the police that night when something could actually have been done. Why wouldn't we notify the guy who should know what to do - Sandusky's employer - the child psychologist responsible for him and the kids of The Second Mile? 

This was no sinister cover-up to protect a football program. This was a rational decision by 2 PSU administrators who could not make much out of a muddled uncertain account by a man they believed to be far more accomplished as a leader of men than average. PSU QB Mike McQueary failed to be what these administrators believed he was, and his failure - not theirs, is the root of this entire debacle.  

MIKE McQUEARY COULD HAVE STOPPED ALL OF THIS AND HE FAILED. 




So what to expect from this trial? I have no idea. 

I do know that, with former counsel Cynthia Baldwin, PSU would most likely lose this case. Her ineptitude and incompetence are contributing causes of the PSU predicament. When Corbett and Surma called that 'emergency' meeting, she was the person who should have said NO to their plan to fire Joe and force Graham to the sidelines.  

So I suppose the result of this current McQueary trial will depend on the competence of the current PSU counsel. I  know nothing about either - who that is or what the strategy will be in this trial. But given the history of PSU's capitulation in the face of these insane events, I cannot say with any confidence there is hope of a favorable outcome for the University. I believe any favorable outcome would entail making the 2011 thru 2015 Board of Trustees out to be the fools that they were - and it's difficult to know who is representing what interests in this mess. 

It appears that the scope of this complaint may be limited to the termination of McQueary's employment. Penn State changed football coaches and a typical practice in college football is the complete change of coaching staffs. There is even talk of a settlement. 

Here is a LINK to the COMPLAINT PLEADING McQUEARY V PSU
and 
LINK to the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY 

The result of this trial might have some effect on the PSU three case, but until we hear the testimony and get the results, it will be difficult to determine. 

PANEL SET FOR McQUEARY TRIAL 

Attorneys for Penn State and its former assistant football coach Mike McQueary will reconvene Tuesday afternoon for the final phase of jury selection in McQueary's whistleblower suit against the university.
Individual interviews with 45 prospective jurors over the last two days have yielded a final pool of 28, from which each side will have the ability to strike six candidates.
That would leave 12 jurors and three alternates for the case-in-chief, which is tentatively scheduled to begin next Monday.
It is possible, of course, that the university and McQueary could reach a settlement before then, meaning the case - which would give a fresh look at Penn State's internal response to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal - would never go to trial.
McQueary, 42, seeks damages of at least $4 million, arguing Penn State's inaction in 2001 and former President Graham Spanier's initial support of the former administrators who McQueary reported to after their arrest on failure to report charges damaged his reputation at a time when national attention to the Sandusky case was at its peak.
The university, after initially placing McQueary on paid leave, did not renew his contract after June 2012.
But officials have said that was simply the result of a post-Paterno era changing of the guard in the Penn State football program, and point to the payment of an 18-month severance to McQueary as an example of its fairness to him.

From a much earlier post on various testimonies on the record 

McQUEARY UNDER OATH - Grand Jury, Perjury Hearing and the Trial

We know that the Grand Jury Presentment insisted MM's testimony was that he observed JS subjecting the boy to anal intercourse and informed PSU officials Paterno, Curley and Schultz. Presentment pages 6 and 7
His perjury hearing testimony: 2 or 3 slapping sounds "rhythmic and sexual" and two 2 second glances of JS backside with no hands or genitals in view as JS stood behind a boy whose head came up to his pectoral muscles with his feet on the floor. Perjury Hearing Transcript
And finally the testimony at trial was more confident as he added that he saw subtle movement from JS midsection as he claimed certainty that he was a witness to rape. What movement can be observed or certainty established in 1 or 2 seconds? McQueary Testimony summary
The jury in deliberation asked to hear the McQueary and Dranov testimony read again. It was the only testimony they reviewed. Their verdict was "not guilty" on the count of deviate sexual intercourse so they did not believe MM and his certainty about witness of a rape. Jury hears testimony again 
The defense did not use the Perjury Hearing testimony or the various versions of McQueary's statements to impeach his trial testimony about an unidentified "victim" 2. Don't expect attorneys for Schultz and Curley to be so negligent and soft on Mike. The prosecution used mannequins to illustrate the positions of the boy and JS according to the testimony.


THE TESTIMONY BELOW CORROBORATES THE Q & A ABOVE