Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Then what was the discussion about?

I'm saying that Paterno didn't go against the reporting policy because he wasn't given enough information to risk corrupting the investigation. People are using his wishy-washy recount of events that took place 10 years ago to convince themselves that Paterno was well aware of the full extent of Sandusky's actions. When you say "I am not sure what you call it" it doesn't really seem that you are confident you are remembering what you were told.

[shmenguin]

Soft-selling something to Baldwin is one thing; making misstatements and material omissions to a grand jury is perjury.

nope. just more bad luck.

[count2infinity]

Then what was the discussion about?

I'm saying that Paterno didn't go against the reporting policy because he wasn't given enough information to risk corrupting the investigation. People are using his wishy-washy recount of events that took place 10 years ago to convince themselves that Paterno was well aware of the full extent of Sandusky's actions. When you say "I am not sure what you call it" it doesn't really seem that you are confident you are remembering what you were told.

Where? In here? People are saying that Paterno knew the full extent of Sandusky's actions and chose to ignore it? I've seen nut jobs like Mark Madden exclaim such thing, but I haven't seen it on here (other than when the story first broke). Paterno knew something and that is enough for some people to discredit everything he did in his life because he didn't act fully on knowing something. But to try to suggest he knew nothing and that Mcquerry told him nothing is a bit far fetched.

[relantel]

Like I said. Unluckiest guy in the world. Couldn't catch a break. Everything happened to fall into place against him.

I guess to kind of counter this, does that make Sandusky the luckiest guy in the world? A person that pretty much runs PSU, and who has gone on record to dislike Sandusky has the following conversation with Spanier:

JP: Sandusky is raping children in the showers.
GS: Whoa, what are we going to do about this?
JP: Let's cover it up. Can't hurt the football program.
GS: Good idea, we should at least fire him.
JP: No, that would look suspicious. We have to let him stay here.
GS: But wouldn't he just continue to rape kids?
JP: Yes, but think about it this way... what's more important? Football or little kids?
GS: Ahhh... good point.

Like the article I posted earlier said... when this whole situation came out, it was black and white according to the media and most of America. As time has gone on, it seems as though there is far more grey, more questions than answers, and there are still administrators that need to have their day in court where likely more information will be released. To just write off any information that didn't come out in or before the Freeh report isn't exactly a good way to have an informed opinion on the matter.

let's be sure of the scope of this particular tangent. all i'm saying is that paterno was told about a boy being sexually abused by sandusky. i know this because paterno told as much to a grand jury. that's it. game over.

the stuff about an institutional cover up fits in with what you're saying. that's complicated, and a lot of new info seems to be coming out. same with the sanctions and all that.

but there is no question about what paterno knew. none. zero. SDD's last post is absolutely amazing. i can't believe a person is spending time figuring out how to try to take back what paterno plainly admitted.

We're back to the "it was" vs "was it" transcription error here. The audio recording from the grand jury testimony exists on record -- it was subject to a preservation order issued in response to a motion from Curley and Schultz very early on in 2011. That transcription error will be able to be put on the record at trial if it ever gets to trial -- since the error makes a HUGE difference in the statement, moving from declarative to a question. "Was it" fits better with the context that follows. While to the stenographer this might have been harmless error, the effect on it on the record is huge. Recall that the 12/16/11 preliminary hearing Paterno himself was unable to testify, and what was read into the record by the Prosecutor was the grand jury transcription. The audio records were preserved as Curley and Schultz's grand jury testimony was read into the record the same way and Schultz had doubts his own testimony as presented matched what he had testified to, which was the reason for their request for a preservation order.

[shmenguin]

"Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy"

what are you even talking about. what error. where is there a simple mistake that flips the meaning there?

[slappybrown]

Why doesn't Paterno or his counsel correct it via an errata sheet? How does his use of the word "fondling" a boy lead you to conclude that its likely there was a transcription error 4 or 5 questions later?

[Troy Loney]

We're back to the "it was" vs "was it" transcription error here. The audio recording from the grand jury testimony exists on record -- it was subject to a preservation order issued in response to a motion from Curley and Schultz very early on in 2011. That transcription error will be able to be put on the record at trial if it ever gets to trial -- since the error makes a HUGE difference in the statement, moving from declarative to a question. "Was it" fits better with the context that follows. While to the stenographer this might have been harmless error, the effect on it on the record is huge. Recall that the 12/16/11 preliminary hearing Paterno himself was unable to testify, and what was read into the record by the Prosecutor was the grand jury transcription. The audio records were preserved as Curley and Schultz's grand jury testimony was read into the record the same way and Schultz had doubts his own testimony as presented matched what he had testified to, which was the reason for their request for a preservation order.

Have you heard the audio?

[relantel]

Additionally, if Paterno was posing a question -- which he does not at any other point, and which witnesses in grand jury proceedings do not do as a matter of course since they are in there on their own, answering questions about potential criminal behavior -- as to whether the conduct could be described as "sexual", then when he saw the transcript of his testimony, I am sure he and his counsel would have completed an errata sheet correcting the error in transcription. Again, if your position is that the stenographer screwed up and transposed a word, creating a declarative statement where there was a question, and that neither Paterno nor his counsel corrected that error (which error is highly unlikely to occur in the first instance and because it was assuredly videotaped), then again, you're really stretching any reasonable limits of credulity.

His counsel - Scott Paterno - is aware of the transcription error. Though my opinion of him as counsel is very low, he said they were pursuing a copy of the tape. (This was from twitter conversation several months ago, I believe in October. I got blocked by him some time thereafter though so I have no idea what he is doing now beyond the Paterno et al filings.)

[shmenguin]

great...there are two of them

[slappybrown]

I found the Police interview, in, of all places, Ziegler's book:

INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO

The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.

SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?

J. PATERNO: Yes.

SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.

J. PATERNO: Yes he did.

SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.

J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.

SASSANO: So he did not elaborate to you what this sexual activity was, only that he witnessed some sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy?

J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.

SASSANO: Touching?

J. PATERNO: Touching.. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.

SASSANO: Okay, could he have said there was something more? An actual sex act?

J. PATERNO: He never said that.

SASSANO: Okay. Subsequent to that conversation with Mike, you took some appropriate action, correct?

J. PATERNO: Yea, I did because I felt, again, at that time Jerry Sandusky was not working for me.

SASSANO: Correct.

J. PATERNO: Jerry had retired from the coaching staff two or three years earlier. So I didn’t feel it was my responsibility to make any kind of a decision as to what to do with him, so I called our athletic director, I told him that Mike McQueary had something that he probably ought to share with him.

SASSANO: Okay, did you tell him that over the phone or did you have a meeting in person here at your house?

J. PATERNO: No, I told him over the phone.

SASSANO: Did you have a subsequent meeting at your house?

J. PATERNO: Oh gez, I don’t know, we.. he’s been over here, he comes over here for a lot of different reasons and something may have come up during our, he may have come over about a football schedule, he may have come over about something else and in the process we may have gotten in to it, I can’t say absolutely no and I can’t tell you I remember doing it.

SASSANO: Okay, the key element is, do you remember if you told Mr. Curley whether in person or over the phone, that McQueary witnessed a sexual incident between Sandusky and a boy?

J. PATERNO: To my knowledge yes I think Tim was aware of the fact that Mike had been a.. had seen this inappropriate action.

SASSANO: Sexual action?

J. PATERNO: Well yea, I guess you’d call it sexual. I don’t .. he had a, yea.

SASSANO: Okay, so now it’s quite clear to Mike so, oh I’m sorry, to Mr. Curley. So if Mr. Curley would have told us some…

J. PATERNO: Now I can’t, I can’t tell you it was exactly clear to Mr. Curley you’d have to ask him. I can only tell that he was.. it was transmitted to him that there was inappropriate action. To what degree I didn’t, I never asked Mike. All I know was that it was basic.. it was something we would probably take, uh, probably call sexual. What Tim got out of it I have no way of knowing. But Tim was aware of the fact that we felt we had a problem.

So now that's twice, in a grand jury proceeding and to a rep of the AG's office.

[relantel]

"Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy"

what are you even talking about. what error. where is there a simple mistake that flips the meaning there?

we're talking about the "it was" a sexual nature, where by the following context the "was it" fits the context where the "it was" does not.

[shmenguin]

"Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy"

what are you even talking about. what error. where is there a simple mistake that flips the meaning there?

we're talking about the "it was" a sexual nature, where by the following context the "was it" fits the context where the "it was" does not.

by fondling, he probably meant fondant. and it was a bakery, not a shower.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

[quote="slappybrown"]Re: the State Police, I am not aware of any transcripts or reports of what he told them. Feel free to share.[\quote]



[quote="slappybrown"]Re: the stenographer issue, if Paterno did not intend to state it was sexual in nature, what is the behavior he described to Baldwin as "inappropriate" in a shower with a child? I suppose eating a cheeseburger would be "inappropriate" in a shower too, but I find it hard to believe that a reasonable view of "inappropriate" in a shower with a child is anything other than "sexually inappropriate."[\quote]

Sandusky being alone with a child in a shower would be enough to report, but without any other information might not merit breaking the reporting protocol.

[quote="slappybrown"]Additionally, if Paterno was posing a question -- which he does not at any other point, and which witnesses in grand jury proceedings do not do as a matter of course since they are in there on their own, answering questions about potential criminal behavior -- as to whether the conduct could be described as "sexual", then when he saw the transcript of his testimony, I am sure he and his counsel would have completed an errata sheet correcting the error in transcription. Again, if your position is that the stenographer screwed up and transposed a word, creating a declarative statement where there was a question, and that neither Paterno nor his counsel corrected that error (which error is highly unlikely to occur in the first instance and because it was assuredly videotaped), then again, you're really stretching any reasonable limits of credulity. [\quote]

Would Paterno's counsel have been able to do this since Paterno was never charged with any crimes?

[slappybrown]

Re: the State Police, I am not aware of any transcripts or reports of what he told them. Feel free to share.[\quote]

Re: the stenographer issue, if Paterno did not intend to state it was sexual in nature, what is the behavior he described to Baldwin as "inappropriate" in a shower with a child? I suppose eating a cheeseburger would be "inappropriate" in a shower too, but I find it hard to believe that a reasonable view of "inappropriate" in a shower with a child is anything other than "sexually inappropriate."[\quote]

Sandusky being alone with a child in a shower would be enough to report, but without any other information might not merit breaking the reporting protocol.

Additionally, if Paterno was posing a question -- which he does not at any other point, and which witnesses in grand jury proceedings do not do as a matter of course since they are in there on their own, answering questions about potential criminal behavior -- as to whether the conduct could be described as "sexual", then when he saw the transcript of his testimony, I am sure he and his counsel would have completed an errata sheet correcting the error in transcription. Again, if your position is that the stenographer screwed up and transposed a word, creating a declarative statement where there was a question, and that neither Paterno nor his counsel corrected that error (which error is highly unlikely to occur in the first instance and because it was assuredly videotaped), then again, you're really stretching any reasonable limits of credulity. [\quote]

Would Paterno's counsel have been able to do this since Paterno was never charged with any crimes?

I can't see that image unfortunately. Is it the same as the transcript I posted?

Re: the report, see his statements in my post above.

Re: the errata sheet, yes.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Your report is from 10/24/11, which is after the 1/12/11 interview that I was referring to. Also the image was the incident report by the State Police and not the full transcript.

[shmenguin]

it's not the same thing, slappy. it's a police report from 1/20/11 - not 10/24/11. it's a summary. not a transcript, and says, "Paterno related that McQueary did not give him any specific details about the incident".

so in a summary, a vague statement is made about what paterno knew. in actual transcripts, paterno explicitly confesses to knowing about sexual conduct.

[slappybrown]

Your report is from 10/24/11, which is from after the 1/12/11 interview that I posted.

The January 12 transcript is the one I posted a couple pages back. Its the grand jury testimony. I don't see how that supports your position, unless we're back to transcription error, which, even accepting it as true, is still problematic because of everything he else he does and says both at the time McQueary reports and when the thing blows up.

EDIT: Ok, never mind. I googled Paterno and that date and I got the grand jury testimony.

[slappybrown]

Your report is from 10/24/11, which is after the 1/12/11 interview that I was referring to. Also the image was the incident report by the State Police and not the full transcript.

Also, why is telling the Attorney General Sandusky sexually touched a minor in a shower if he wasn't told that by McQueary? I assume your answer is he was "influenced" by third parties but I still genuinely do not understand what that means.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Your report is from 10/24/11, which is from after the 1/12/11 interview that I posted.

The January 12 transcript is the one I posted a couple pages back. Its the grand jury testimony. I don't see how that supports your position, unless we're back to transcription error, which, even accepting it as true, is still problematic because of everything he else he does and says both at the time McQueary reports and when the thing blows up.

Paterno had a meeting with the State police earlier in the morning on the same day he gave his Grand Jury testimony. The Grand Jury testimony has a timestamp of around 11AM and the Incident report has a timestamp of around 8AM.

[Troy Loney]

So essentially the Grand Jury testimony by Paterno is questioned because he was manipulated and a potential stenographer error based on context.

It is at least understandable that a reasonable person would disagree with those, right?

[shmenguin]

So essentially the Grand Jury testimony by Paterno is questioned because he was manipulated and a potential stenographer error based on context.

It is at least understandable that a reasonable person would disagree with those, right?

*crickets*

[thehockeyguru]

What should have been the by the book procedure for Paterno once he was informed by McQuery?

[count2infinity]

By the book is exactly what he did. I think if he should have done anything differently, he should have told McQuery to go to the police, as they're not going to take second hand information.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Penn State Must Give Millions of Documents to Sandusky Victim, Including Freeh Report Materials

http://www.statecollege.com/mobile/news ... s,1462526/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

By the book is exactly what he did. I think if he should have done anything differently, he should have told McQuery to go to the police, as they're not going to take second hand information.

Agreed