Penn State assistant Mike McQueary claimed he spoke to police in an email circulated to friends and obtained by the Morning Call on Tuesday. The email seemed to contradict the grand jury presentment in the case against Jerry Sandusky, but also raised questions about what police knew and when. On Wednesday, two police agencies in State College spoke out, denying McQueary ever sought them out in 2002.
The statement from State College police actually has little bearing on McQueary's credibility at all. A spokesman explains:
"He didn't come to State College police. The crime happened on campus and we don't have jurisdiction on campus," King said. "We've had no reports (of Sandusky sexually abusing someone) from anybody."
The university police force, which does hold jurisdiction over the Penn State campus, also denies ever hearing from McQueary:
"This is the first we have heard of it," said Lisa Powers, Penn State's director of public information.
But here's the problem: we can only take Penn State's word for it. Because PSU is exempt from information requests, it can't be compelled to release records unless subpoenaed by a court of law. Penn State won't release the records itself, citing an ongoing investigation, so it's one word against another.
There's another piece to the equation, as well: nobody knows what, exactly, McQueary said to the grand jury. The presentment only paints one picture, and doesn't serve as a transcript of the testimony. It's a summary, and for all we know his statements could line up, making this much ado about nothing.
This semantics argument matters, or will matter in the future, because McQueary's credibility is at stake. If he's making conflicting statements now, it calls into question his status as a credible witness, opening him up to attacks by the defense whenever the case against Sandusky goes to trial.
Or McQueary could be back-tracking and making different statements now than he had in the past, which would be a problem for the prosecution come trial time. The bottom line, however, is that it's likely too early to make any kind of judgment on whether or not he can be deemed credible in a trial situation.