Schultz and Curley said that McQueary never said the encounter was sexual in nature, and Spanier said he never heard any reports from the two officials of sexual abuse of a boy. McQueary's allegations of scapegoating warnings took the spotlight during the first day of the hearing. In a preliminary hearing, the prosecution has to introduce enough evidence or witnesses to suggest a crime occurred and that it can be linked to the people charged. Prosecutors often present a fraction of their full case at this stage.
Mallios, who has followed the cases related to the scandal closely, said McQueary's testimony alone provides the burden of proof the prosecution needs to take the case to trial. Still, McQueary's word may come into question. In the past, he has been criticized for not doing enough to address the sexual abuse, and over time he has changed details of his story about the alleged rape of the boy in the shower.
The biggest question is whether or not Mike McQueary should be on the staff. Most are scratching their heads as to why he is even in town. After all, he was the alleged one who witnessed everything in the first place, right?
Had it not been for McQueary, the stress of everything would have had a different outcome. Still, most wanted him to be the first person to be canned. I think the biggest and, possibly only, reason he is still on staff is because the university is afraid of what he may say once he is fired.
For you. World globe An icon of the world globe, indicating different international options. Get the Insider App. Click here to learn more. A leading-edge research firm focused on digital transformation. Good Subscriber Account active since Shortcuts. In this case, the others are anyone at Penn State that allegedly helped to cover up the scandal. If he tries to stay, the school should take action against a name that will always be associated with this scandal.
Enjoy our content?
0コメント