HARRISBURG, Pa. (WFAN/AP) — Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary testified Friday that he believes he saw former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky sexually molesting a boy but said he wasn’t 100 percent sure it was intercourse.

McQueary, speaking for the first time in public about the 2002 encounter in a Penn State locker room, said he believes that Sandusky was attacking the child with his hands around the boy’s waist. He also said there was no doubt in his mind that he fully conveyed what he had seen to two Penn State administrators now accused of lying to a grand jury about what McQueary told them.

McQueary took the stand Friday morning in a Pennsylvania courtroom during a preliminary hearing for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

District Judge William C. Wenner was hearing testimony Friday to help him decide whether state prosecutors have enough evidence against the pair to send their cases to trial. The hearing was expected to last most of the day.

McQueary’s story is central to the case against Curley and Schultz. They testified to the grand jury that McQueary never relayed the seriousness of what he saw. The officials, and Penn State coach Joe Paterno, have been criticized for never telling police about the 2002 allegation. Prosecutors say Sandusky continued to abuse boys for six more years.

The lawyers for Curley and Schultz say the men are innocent.

McQueary said he had stopped by a campus football locker room to drop off a pair of sneakers in the spring of 2002 when he happened upon Sandusky and the boy in a shower.

The assistant coach said he saw Sandusky was behind a boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years old, with his hands wrapped around the boy’s waist. He said the boy was facing a wall, with his hands on it.

“I looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry with a boy in the shower,” said McQueary.

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.”

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.”

McQueary said he reported what he saw to Paterno.

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.

“I was not thinking straight,” said McQueary.

He said Paterno told him he’d “done the right thing” by reporting what he saw. The head coach appeared shocked and saddened and slumped back in his chair, McQueary said.

Paterno told McQueary he would talk to others about what he’d reported.

Nine or 10 days later, McQueary said he met with Curley and Shultz and told them he’d seen Sandusky and a boy, both naked, in the shower after hearing skin on skin slapping sounds.

“I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong,” McQueary said. “I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on.”

McQueary said he was left with the impression both men took his report seriously. When asked why he didn’t go to police, he referenced Shultz’s position as a vice president at the university who had overseen the campus police.

“I thought I was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you,” he said. “In my mind it was like speaking to a (district attorney). It was someone who police reported to and would know what to do with it.”

Under cross-examination, McQueary said he considered what he saw a crime but didn’t call police because “it was delicate in nature.”

“I tried to use my best judgment,” he said. “I was sure the act was over.” He said he never tried to find the boy.

Later, Thomas Harmon, the former chief of the Penn State police department, said Schultz didn’t tell him about the shower allegation.

Paterno, Schultz and Curley didn’t testify, but Judge Wenner read their grand jury testimony from January in weighing the case.

Sandusky says he is innocent of more than 50 charges stemming from what authorities say were sexual assaults over 12 years on 10 boys in his home, on Penn State property and elsewhere. The scandal has provoked strong criticism that Penn State officials didn’t do enough to stop Sandusky, and prompted the departures of Hall of Fame football coach Joe Paterno and the school’s longtime president, Graham Spanier.

Curley, 57, Penn State’s athletic director, was placed on leave by the university after his arrest. Schultz, 62, returned to retirement after spending about four decades at the school, most recently as senior vice president for business and finance, and treasurer.

Your thoughts on McQueary’s testimony? Sound off below…

(TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

Comments (9)
  1. John Rea says:

    Really, how do these people sleep at night? Shame on them.

  2. Sully says:

    Let me predict what the next line of Paterno apologists will say:

    “HEY, he was NEVER told it was intercourse. So what’s the problem?”

    or maybe “McQuery THOUGHT he was talking to the head of police or a DA, so what’s the problem?”

    1. Paterno Apologist says:

      For one thing Paterno was charged with no crime and testified truthfully and told his superior and the man responsible for the police department. As testified to by former chief of campus police, Shultz was his boss but you can just keep saying he wasn’t. Paterno told Mcqueary he did the right thing. No one ever told or pressured Mcqueary regarding what he saw, where is the cover up. Should Shultz have had his subordinate launch an investigation no matter what Mcqueary told him relative to detail, of course. Is it Paterno’s fault he didn’t?No
      In retrospect does Paterno wish he had done more, certainly. Was he trying to protect his legacy and program by staging an elaborate coverup? I don’t see one shred of evidence of that.
      Mcqueary still is sure what he saw, which will likely result in Shultz and Curley walking on the perjury charges, but he was talking to the head of police, he didn’t think it.
      The problem is if you follow the full transcript Curley called Sandusky BEFORE he talked to Mcqueary. It’s likely that his take on Mcqueary’s watered down version of events was fully colored by the masterful deception of a pedophile who was able to adopt 6 kids and run a childrens charity that provided services to 100,000 children per year. Curley had no knowledge of the 1998 incident. Schultz is clearly incompetent, lazy or complicit with Spanier in trying to keep things quiet. He did know about 1998 because he ran the police department then as well.
      At the end of the day as a Paterno apologist even though I believe he could have and should have done more I can not understand why he continues to be the focus of the story. It should be on Sandusky and the victims. Even most of yesterdays headlines were sensationalized statements regarding waiting till Sunday to call Curley or “Paterno knew of inappropriate actions by Sandusky” we already knew that. We didn’t know he was not told of rape, we did not know he was shocked and saddened, we did not know he told Mcqueary he did the
      right thing. As was the case prior to yesterday we do not know what Paterno did or did not due to follow up but I suspect we’ll find that out but in the meantime I’m sure the venom toward him rather than Sandusky will continue since papers need to be sold, web hits measured and tv ratings improved. Hating Sandusky is easy and boring taking down Paterno is much more fun.

  3. Robert Richardson says:

    I don’t think you will see any “true” apologist coming out as they start reading between the lines. The “fake’ ones, (those just responding out of a sense of guilt from their own skeletons) know how ridiculous they sound. Any way you want to put it, Mike McQueary is a sorry excuse for man

  4. Dude says:

    why is mcqueary even out he should be in jail getting violated by bubba

  5. JK says:

    Let’s hear it from the Paterno Apologists…

    McQueary’s a hack. The Associated Press are hacks. WFAN’s a hack. I mean, Sandusky’s lawyer even said all Jerry was doing was teaching the boys proper hygiene.

    Makes perfect sense for an old man to have his hands around a naked boy in a shower. Right? At least everyone called the cops. Right?

    Oh, wait, no one called the cops. A local high school blew the whistle on Sandusky, not Penn State.

    At least Paterno banned Sandusky from the campus after McQeary’s account in 2002. Right? Oh, wait, Sandusky brought boys to the campus years after ’02…

    1. Paterno Apologist says:

      Um not sure what the Hack references are but I do know that mcqueary told a 4th version of events and fully contradicted the grad jury presentment by saying he could not be sure intercourse occurred so it’s likely Culey and Shultz walk on perjury charges.
      Regarding Sandusky, his fate is sealed and being a Paterno apologist does not for one second mean I think Sandusky is innocent. His lawyers are grasping for straws.
      What we learned from Paterno who was deemed by the AG and the grand jury to be truthful and a cooperating witness was that he did not know of rape nor did he know of any prior incidents regarding Sandusky which countless media types have in a defamatory fashion stated as facts.
      Shultz ran the police, end of story he should have had his subordinate, the campus police chief investigate as occurred in 1998. He did not. How that makes Paterno fully responsible makes no sense based on all facts in evidence.
      Paterno had no authority what soever to ban someone from campus so your last statement makes no sense.

  6. Ellen says:

    OK, then how come you didn’t call the cops?

  7. Johnny Favs says:

    That sounds like a wild scene! Too bad there’s no video of it.

Leave a Reply