McQueary testifies: I didn't stop Sandusky when I saw him with that kid, but I did slam my locker extra loud

I don’t know what to tell you, guys. I’m at a loss.

Hey, remember last month when ESPN reported that McQueary had stopped it? Is this what their source meant by “stopping it”? Slamming a locker?

In today’s hearing, McQueary said he did not actually see rape, but something he believed was sexual in nature.

“I thought that Jerry was molesting him, having intercourse with him. I didn’t see insertion or hear protest,” McQueary said. “Jerry having some type of intercourse with him, that’s what I believe I saw.”…

“The boy was up against the wall, his hands up, Jerry behind him in a close position, with his hands wrapped around the boy. I thought to myself this is a sexual position,” he testified.

McQueary conceded that he did nothing physically to stop the attack, but said he made his presence known.

“I stepped back and didn’t want to see it anymore. I slammed the locker shut, and when I looked in, they had separated. I know they saw me, they both looked directly into my eyes, and neither said anything to me.”

“Seeing that they both saw me, I left the locker room. I can’t describe what I was thinking or feeling: shocked, horrified, distraught,” he said.

You can read the minutes of his trial testimony at the Times Leader, but if you’re in a skimming mood, try Business Insider’s compendium of tweets from reporters on the scene. A taste from the section on McQueary: “He never confronted Sandusky about the incident in the nine years since.” Terrific.

Here’s another tidbit guaranteed to spread yuletide cheer:

Friday afternoon, the sworn testimony that Paterno, Curley and Schultz had given to a grand jury hearing evidence in the case was read aloud in court…

Paterno … was also asked why he had not reported McQueary’s accusations to his superiors more quickly. Paterno seemed to suggest that he waited a day because it was a Saturday.

“I didn’t want to interfere with their weekend,” Paterno testified.

Interestingly, McQueary admitted today that he never explicitly used the words “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” in describing to Paterno what he saw out of “respect” for Paterno. Paterno told the grand jury that he was led to understand by McQueary that Sandusky had been “fondling, whatever you call it, I don’t know what the term is, a young boy.” A defense lawyer for the PSU athletic director who’s been charged with perjury pointed to that slight discrepancy as proof that McQueary never fully conveyed the gravity of the situation to Paterno, which is why the athletic director didn’t call McQueary about what happened until, er, nine or 10 days after the incident. The obvious question: Why would “fondling” a kid in the showers rather than full-on rape be a lower priority for rapid response by the university?

Exit quotation: “In my mind, it was like speaking to a D.A.”