Mike McQueary: Embattled Coach Says He Discussed 2002 Incident with Police

Gabe ZaldivarPop Culture Lead WriterNovember 15, 2011

There is just one way to describe the multiple stories surrounding the Jerry Sandusky scandal. They are still unfolding. 

Another odd piece that never seemed to fit may be getting ironed out. It will, of course, take months if not years to fully understand the scope and breadth of the alleged crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky. 

It will take just as long to understand exactly what people knew, and who knew it. If a new report is to be believed, Mike McQueary's tale is a complex one. 

The man that is chopping at the bit to tell his story just can't do so as he is being is seemingly muzzled by the legal process. The truth always has a way of leaking out, and that is what may be happening at the moment. 

ESPN reports sources close to the investigation spoke with the network's Tom Rinaldi. The information provided has been the impetus for a report citing McQueary played a much bigger role in stopping an alleged rape in 2002 and speaking directly with police. 

The report specifically cites the following as told to them by sources: 

...Mike McQueary stopped Sandusky's alleged rape of a boy as young as 10 years old that McQueary witnessed at a shower at the Penn State practice facility in 2002.

The source characterized McQueary, a key witness in the case, as "credible" and "consistent" in describing the events of the alleged attack to investigators.

McQueary, a Penn State wide receivers coach who was placed on administrative leave Friday, also told a friend in an email that he stopped the alleged rape and discussed it with police.

If true, there are a bevy of questions that may come flooding to the forefront. It is very clear that McQueary would like to get the word out and tell his side of the story. 

He sent an email to former players to assure them that he did everything in his power in 2002. There is also the extremely brief interview with CBS whose brevity was no doubt legally assured. 

But if true, the obvious question is why it took investigators so long to charge Sandusky? I guess the better question is, why was he not locked up years ago?

I am afraid this is not going to be answered overnight. But the assumption that we are all working under seems to be coming true. This sordid tale is far deeper and more complex than we could ever have imagined. 

Follow gabezal on Twitter