Here's what I don't get...

[All4SU]

(And this was addressed somewhat in the radio link interview with Mark Madden posted below.)

What specifically did McQueary say to Paterno about witnessing Sandusky and the boy in the shower? And if the information was scant (as supposedly Paterno will claim, even though the grand jury report says otherwise), why didn't JoPa push to get more details from McQueary? Why didn't he say, "Wait, you're saying they were in the showers together? Both naked? What was he doing? What exactly did you see?"

Simply by not following up with more questions for McQueary, that tells me everything I need to know about Paterno.

(Personally, I think McQueary was very explicit. But there doesn't seem to be an out for Paterno either way.)

 

[texascpa]

There is no way in hell that McQueary told Paterno that "something sexual may have happened" or whatever vague phrasing Joe has been using. No way. Joe knew the details just as described by McQueary to the Grand Jury, he had to have.

 

[Scooch]

Even if you believe that McQueary merely told Paterno there was "fondling" then that alone is more than enough to immediately go to the police. Not the stupid campus police, but actual law enforcement. Now it certainly seems that Paterno was told more than that, although maybe short of McQueary saying "I saw Sandusky a kid in the ass in the shower", because we couldn't have Grandpa Joe being exposed to that kind of coarse language. But everyone agrees that at the minimum he was told of "fondling"... I mean, that's game, set and match.

 

[SmilinBob]

Boys will be boys. That is what I imagine what paterno thinking. That or sandusky has some serious dirt on people.

 

[All4SU]

Well, my suspicion is that Paterno already knew about Sandusky's proclivities for young boys long before the shower incident, so he didn't really need more information.

Either way, JoPa is real slime and this was not an isolated incident of poor judgment on Paterno's part.

 

[Avatusstone28]

Joe Paterno IS (or was) Penn State. He controlled everything, so he had to have known everything that was going on.

My only question, is why Sandusky was allowed complete access to the Penn State facilities after being a known child sex offender?

 

[VaSaltine]

Maybe Joe was involved with Sandusky and just never got caught and that's why he never took it any further. Very plausible and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed.

 

[SmilinBob]

Maybe Joe was involved with Sandusky and just never got caught and that's why he never took it any further. Very plausible and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed.

Yeah, the ga goes to the guy that actually knows exactly what's going on and is a big part of this man boy business. I hope it's not true but for sandusky to still be able to go to ps something or someone with some serious pull made it so he could still be there.

 

[Orangello]

Well, my suspicion is that Paterno already knew about Sandusky's proclivities for young boys long before the shower incident, so he didn't really need more information.

Either way, JoPa is real slime and this was not an isolated incident of poor judgment on Paterno's part.

Of course he did and that's why Sandusky decided to "retire" in 1999 after meeting with Paterno, while in the prime of his coaching life (55) and after being named assistant of the year. A guy who is at the pinnacle of his profession therefater never coaches again, not one sniff from any other program. That's insane.

Where is the 1998 internal university report and who saw it ?

 

[BleedOrange]

What specifically did McQueary say to Paterno about witnessing Sandusky and the boy in the shower?

I believe that it's clear in the GJ report that McQueary told Paterno exactly what happened. Paterno, in turn, related "watered down" information to Curley.

(from the indictment)
McQueary tells what he witnessed, then:

"The graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home where he reported what he had seen. Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning... Paterno called Tim Curley... to his home the very next day, a Sunday morning, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

If Paterno had denied the fact that McQueary told him exactly what he claims to have, as the others did, I think the report would have stated as much.

 

[Scooch]

"fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy"

What Paterno relayed that Sunday morning doesn't even need to be exact. If Paterno actually told the AD that it was something of a sexual nature than there really is no debate. He "knew"... and he got it from an eyewitness that could be counted on to be telling the truth.

This wasn't Paterno saying he heard from McQueary via some random game of telephone that there were rumors of weird behavior. He was told 12 hours after it happened that some kind of sexual thing was going on between a grown man and a young boy. How anyone can even consider that Paterno isn't culpable for this not being stopped is utterly unfathomable.

 

[BleedOrange]

I completely agree. Either way, the police should've been called. Instead, they left the door wide open for more vicims to pile up.

 

[Upstate]

There is no way in hell that McQueary told Paterno that "something sexual may have happened" or whatever vague phrasing Joe has been using. No way. Joe knew the details just as described by McQueary to the Grand Jury, he had to have.

You're 100% right. You don't beat around the bush with that stuff. McQueary's father will be the biggest piece in this puzzle. Remember, McQueary's first move was to go to his father, not JoePa. I don't doubt for a second that he told him everything he saw.

 

[ljmilman]

The thing is, the more details McQueary gave, the more Paterno would have to turn around and ask him "So, you saw this happening, ran away without stopping it, and came to me a day later?"

I wonder if McQueary used a lot of phrases like "might" "not sure, but" and "maybe" both because he couldn't believe what he had seen and because it'd make him look like less of a for not actually doing anything.

 

[qdawgg]

In 1998 he admitted to the DA that he showered and "hugged" a boy - then you have the events of 2002. Joe knew about 1998 and despite what the GA told him in 2002 he still decided it wasn't a big enough deal to protect any kids.

 

[ljmilman]

In 1998 he admitted to the DA that he showered and "hugged" a boy - then you have the events of 2002. Joe knew about 1998 and despite what the GA told him in 2002 he still decided it wasn't a big enough deal to protect any kids.

According to most, Joe didn't know about 1998.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/onward-state/sandusky-scandal-national_b_1085201.html
"Patriot-News reporter Sara Garim, who has been the point person for all of the investigative stories dealing with this case, say that Joe testified he did not know about the 1998 allegations, going as far to say: "I think it's fair to say, as far as you could possibly say, that Joe Paterno didn't know about [the 1998 investigation]." If some real investigating had been done by the national media, they'd probably know that too."

 

[qdawgg]

According to most, Joe didn't know about 1998.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/onward-state/sandusky-scandal-national_b_1085201.html
"Patriot-News reporter Sara Garim, who has been the point person for all of the investigative stories dealing with this case, say that Joe testified he did not know about the 1998 allegations, going as far to say: "I think it's fair to say, as far as you could possibly say, that Joe Paterno didn't know about [the 1998 investigation]." If some real investigating had been done by the national media, they'd probably know that too."

I didn't realize that - thanks for clarifying.