Paterno testified that MCQueary had told him he “…had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lascc building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
This is a quote from the grand jury report (page 7). McQueary claims he was more specific than that. We may never hear any more detail since it is extremely rare for the actual transcripts of grand jury proceedings go be released.
But IMO there is no doubt whatsoever that, even if Parerno’s recollection about McQueary’s report is true, that Paterno must have known that it constituted an eyewitness report of the sexual abuse of a minor. I believe it’s beyond question that Paterno must have understood this. How credible he found this report to be, and whether he had a moral obligation to do more, are debatable.
Familiarize yourself with the facts before you embarrass yourself further.
He knew this was coming. He’d had nine years to fulfill his moral obligations to make sure a real investigation (not one conducted by the Athletic Director and the Vice President of Finance) was performed. He continued to work with Sandusky informally, and with McQueary formally, with no problems. HE EXPLAINED HIMSELF TO THE GRAND JURY.
He failed his moral obligations. Nothing he could say in his defense would change that failure.
Excuse me… what is a “middle ground… innocent explanation” of “something of a sexual nature”, between a middle aged man and a young boy in a locker room shower?
Since you seem to be completely incapable of reading normal words, let me make the words larger,:
YES WE FUCKING WELL DO KNOW WHAT PATERNO HEARD BECAUSE HE TOLD US IN HIS TESTIMONY TO THE GRAND MOTHERFUCKING JURY.
The only people using the word horseplay are you and the other child rape supporters on this board.
Joe got the opportunity to explain his actions (or lack thereof) to the grand jury.
Apparently you are utterly determined to take over from Starving Artist as this thread’s defender of grown-ass powerful men refusing to fulfill their moral obligations as decent human beings.
You know, this? Makes any post you make immediately worthless. There’s a link to a news story in the very first motherfucking post in this thread, and embedded in that news story is a link to the grand jury report.
IN THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD.
Since you’re not capable of reading that, I’ll make it easy on you and provide you with a direct link. Enjoy (such as you can).
I don’t mean to get so heated, but this is exactly why the Paterno-enabling here is so insidious – it fuels the notion that there’s just no way of knowing how bad the incident was. Untrue – it was clearly very, very bad, to the extent that when you read it, I really hope you won’t side with the oddballs here who insist on defending some distinction (other than a technical legal charge-based one) between “sexual contact, fondling, with a child” and “anal intercourse with a child.”
Has Paterno said he asked for a hearing and was refused? He could have asked for one. There is this thing called a phone (or so I hear) He could have given the trustees a heads up.
To be fair, he only had nine years to clarify his side of the story. And two and a half years of formal grand jury proceedings. What do you think he is, some kind of superman?
At the risk of more insults, after reading the indictment, I don’t see the smoking gun. It’s a prosecutor’s summary of the testimony before the grand jury, presented with a spin for persuasive effect, and put before the foreman for his signature. It really doesn’t give an indication of the words that Paterno heard on that Saturday.
The indictment doesn’t say any more than what was reported in all of the news stories. So I didn’t read the actual document before posting. So that makes me an idiot? Again, the jury didn’t draft that, some law clerk in the prosecutor’s office did.
Nothing in there suggests what Paterno saw, heard, or gathered from his meeting with McQueary on that Saturday. And nonetheless, HE DID REPORT IT. What else should he have done? Put on his Columbo overcoat and looked for clues?
Has Paterno publically refuted the basics of the Grand Jury Report? Because, ya know, if some report came out that me look like a tool, I think I might be bothered to make a public statement to clear up the record.
I’m sure that any rookie lawyer would tell him to shut up because in this frenzy, he might find himself charged. He’s been fired. Why would he want to speak now?
And yet ten posts up you’re feigning ignorance as to whether McQueary might have just seen Sandusky leaving the shower as the boy walked in?
Given what you only now admit “was reported in all the news stories,” it is incontestable that neither Paterno nor McQueary said that the 2002 incident involved anything less than “fondling or sexual contact with a child.” Which is entirely consistent with the differently-worded description of “anal intercourse” (a form of “sexual contact with a child.”). There was NO ambiguity reported as to their testimony or the soundness of their recollection. There was NO statement made that could be consistent with the two passing each other on the way out of the shower or having a conversation. There was no sworn testimony about anything that would not clearly be a serious felony.
You profoundly insult everyone and waste our time when you posit these counter-factual “scenarios.” And yes, IMHO, that’s trolling, pure and simple.
And the answer that’s been posted six hundred times is – called the cops, confronted Sandusky, tried to identify and help the victim, called the cops, followed up with Curley repeatedly, called the cops.