Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

To partially answer some of slappy's questions, it appears that prior to the Grand Jury Testimony on 1/12/11 Paterno had stated on two different occasions that McQuery had told him that he witnessed Sandusky horsing around with a young boy. The first occasion was on 1/3/11 during a conversation with PSU attorney Cynthia Baldwin. The second occasion was on earlier on 1/12/11 in an interview with the State Police.

You can follow the link below for the source.

@Adlee7873: @ChiTownLionPSU Why did Joe change "horsing around" to "sexual nature"? ScottPa on where "sexual nature" originated: http://t.co/jEouFDGQSB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shmenguin]

Why would be be more specific with a grand jury than he was before - including a mere conversation?

This is a question you're asking right now. Come on.

[columbia]

#shutterisland

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I am not really sure why he was more specific.

My belief is he was possibly influenced based on the earlier questioning from the State Police. I have not seen the questions they asked, but if they asked him at that time if McQuery reported any fondling, then they could have influenced his subsequent testimony. If you read his testimony regarding fondling it's clear he isn't quite sure if he is using the right word to describe what McQuery told him especially considering that McQuery never said that there was fondling during his testimony and later testified that he didn't use sexual terms during his explanation.

Later the transcript states that Paterno said "It was sexual. I am not sure what you would call it." The wording makes more sense if he said, "Was it sexual? I am not sure what you would call it". This could have been a minor error by the stenographer.

Considering this testimony was given 10 years after the event, he probably was having a hard time remembering exactly what the conversation was between him and McQuery, and couldn't remember the exact terms McQuery used. He was influenced based on previous questioning to believe that Mike had seen something sexual and relayed that information to him.

Other than Paterno suddenly remembering something during the rather tame grand jury questioning, I feel the above is a very reasonable explanation.

[count2infinity]

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.

[Troy Loney]

My evolving thoughts on this.

I agree that the NCAA punishments are unwarranted, but have nothing to do with the potential misconduct by PSU brass.

It's pretty silly to even imply that Paterno would provide more incriminating testimony at the Grand Jury than actually existed.

That said, he knew something was wrong with Sandusky, but I'm not sure that it was him being a pedophile. I'm thinking that nothing was brought up because they didn't want to drag Sandusky's name through the dirt. If that was for Sandusky's benefit and the program, I guess two birds one stone kind of thing.

I don't think they did anything criminal, just despicable mostly because of the result of their inaction. Not necessarily despicable intent. Nothing that deserves criminal punishment, but I do think it deserves public condemnation.

[shmenguin]

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.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

[tifosi77]

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on the last few pages but if it's been addressed somewhere else, I apologize. Just another interesting twist to this whole situation. At this link https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... ention.pdf is the NCAA's policy for handling reports of abuse. I highlight the main points made on the opening page of the document. This was passed on August 6, 2014. Enjoy.

• Comply with campus authorities and ensure that all athletics staff, coaches, administrators and student-athletes maintain a hostile-free environment for all student-athletes regardless of gender or sexual orientation; know and follow campus protocol for reporting incidents of sexual violence; report immediately any suspected sexual violence to appropriate campus offices for investigation and adjudication;

• Educate all student-athletes, coaches and staff about sexual violence prevention, intervention and response;

• Assure compliance with all federal and applicable state regulations related to sexual violence prevention and response; and

• Cooperate with but not manage, direct, control or interfere with college or university investigations into allegations of sexual violence ensuring that investigations involving student-athletes and athletics department staff are managed in the same manner as all other students and staff on campus.

So basically the new NCAA rules for handling accusations of sexual misconduct, rules which have been informed by the Sandusky case, are to basically do what Paterno did.

[Troy Loney]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

under oath?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

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.

I just want to point out that Sandusky was retired in 2001 so Spanier and Paterno couldn't fire him. I realize that doesn't change the point you were trying to make, but it is a common misperception people have.

[DudeMan2766]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

I don't understand how this is in any way a defense of Paterno. You really believe he was bullied into testifying something he knew not to be true?

Wait, I'm sure you do.

[shmenguin]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

it doesn't require explanation. that's what you don't get. he told a grand jury. the highest authority in this case. there are no holes there. you need to accept this specific thing as fact. it doesn't make everything you feel about PSU invalid. but this is irrefutable. if it was a crime to be told that someone was being fondled, every court in america would have convicted paterno. no one in their right mind thinks what he told the grand jury is false.

and you were just told by a lawyer that stenographers don't make mistakes in transcribing grand jury testimonies. stop it with that. but feel welcome to throw in a story about aliens tampering with court documents.

[count2infinity]

I believe that Joe knew something... something was off, something was weird, something wasn't right with Sandusky. I think to claim otherwise is ignorant.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

under oath?

He had no reason to lie prior, especially since if he told the truth prior it would help him and the university plan better. I don't think being under oath would make him change his story. Scott Paterno was part of the counsel that represented Joe, and has stated that he never mentioned McQuery saying he witnessed anything sexual prior to the Grand Jury testimony.

[shmenguin]

scratch what i said about the stenographer. i forgot that joepa was the unluckiest guy on the planet for a sec. he even got the one in a million instance where a professional transcriber missed a critical detail.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I believe that Joe knew something... something was off, something was weird, something wasn't right with Sandusky. I think to claim otherwise is ignorant.

I agree with this. I am not convinced that McQuery ever said that something sexual was going on though.

[count2infinity]

Then what was the discussion about?

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

scratch what i said about the stenographer. i forgot that joepa was the unluckiest guy on the planet for a sec. he even got the one in a million instance where a professional transcriber missed a critical detail.

So a stenographer never made a mistake. Gotcha.

[DudeMan2766]

You can follow the link below for the source.

@Adlee7873: @ChiTownLionPSU Why did Joe change "horsing around" to "sexual nature"? ScottPa on where "sexual nature" originated: http://t.co/jEouFDGQSB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes along with my last quote. Maybe it's just early and I'm not reading correctly, but how is this tweet in any way shape or form a serious defense of what Joe heard? Are we seriously dissecting the difference between "horsing around" and "fondling" in regards to being told there was an adult in the shower with a young boy? I mean it's to the point where I'm questioning myself as to whether I understand any of this or reading correctly because I cannot believe some of the things you are trying to pass off as excuses for him

[columbia]

Then what was the discussion about?

If you're to believe some....

About the guy whom was investigated for sexual abuse three years beforehand and how was again in a shower with a little boy. At that point, they presumably discussed where to have dinner or something like that, because it couldn't possibly have been about something sketchy.

[Troy Loney]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

under oath?

He had no reason to lie prior, especially since if he told the truth prior it would help him and the university plan better. I don't think being under oath would make him change his story. Scott Paterno was part of the counsel that represented Joe, and has stated that he never mentioned McQuery saying he witnessed anything sexual prior to the Grand Jury testimony.

There's a difference between lying and withholding information.

I don't have any idea instances you are referencing that would contradict the grand jury testimony, but that testimony was likely coached and rehearsed...no way more incriminating testimony would be released there than truly exists.

[slappybrown]

How do you explain that prior to the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno twice gave differing descriptions of the event? Why did he suddenly allude to the conversation being "sexual"?

This is in response to your prior post above as well.

Re: Baldwin, Paterno's description is in her notes. The notes say "Jerry horsing around with the kid...in shower inappropriate behavior." Her notes do not exclude the possibility that he used the word fondling since its not a transcript like grand jury testimony is, but in any event, if your theory is that Paterno's own grand jury testimony is incorrect, basing your defense on the distinction between "inappropriate behavior" with a "kid" in a "shower" on the one hand and "fondling" the boy in a shower on the other -- yikes. That is one mighty thin reed. Calling this a "differing description" when its based on notes taken by a third person and the comparators are "fondling" and "inappropriate behavior in a shower with a kid" is not persuasive.

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

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."

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.

Finally, based on your later posts. is Paterno lying to a grand jury about being told he a child was "fondled"? Why would he say that if it wasn't either (1) what he was told or (2) substantially similar to what he was told? Being under oath in a grand jury proceeding generally has the effect of sharpening the truth, rather than the opposite. Soft-selling something to Baldwin is one thing; making misstatements and material omissions to a grand jury is perjury.

[shmenguin]

scratch what i said about the stenographer. i forgot that joepa was the unluckiest guy on the planet for a sec. he even got the one in a million instance where a professional transcriber missed a critical detail.

So a stenographer never made a mistake. Gotcha.

yup, so unlucky. weird that a lawyer with actual expertise came here and told you it was implausible but what does he know, right?

[slappybrown]

I believe that Joe knew something... something was off, something was weird, something wasn't right with Sandusky. I think to claim otherwise is ignorant.

I agree with this. I am not convinced that McQuery ever said that something sexual was going on though.

What does he tell Paterno then?????? Why would Paterno report this to the AD if nothing sexual occurred??? Why would he tell PSU's lawyer that there inappropriate behavior in a shower between Sandusky and a boy? Why would he testify under oath that there was fondling/sexual behavior occurring in the shower according to what McQueary told him?