Did Joe Paterno Know More About Jerry Sandusky Than He Let On?

A Philly Mag story explores chilling new details about what happened in Happy Valley.

What did Joe Paterno know about Jerry Sandusky’s alleged behavior around little boys, and when did he know it? That’s the question everyone has been asking since the scandal broke last fall. Now, according to a story about Paterno, Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky scandal in the March issue of Philadelphia magazine, there are suggestions Paterno and those close to him could have known more than has been acknowledged.

In 1999, Sandusky abruptly retired from his position as defensive coordinator, just a year after he was investigated by Penn State university police following an encounter with a young boy and after apparently being told by Paterno he’d never be his successor. Paterno’s son Scott and others around Paterno have said the coach knew nothing about the 1998 investigation. But a longtime friend of athletic director Tim Curley says that when he expressed surprise to Curley at Sandusky’s departure, Curley told him: “It’s for a very good reason”—though Curley wouldn’t elaborate.

Moreover, writes the article’s author, Robert Huber, “someone who knows the Paternos well told me—reluctantly—that a person whose name begins with P-A-T (a Paterno, obviously, though not Joe) told him at least four years ago that ‘Jerry Sandusky didn’t get along well with little boys.’”

Joe Paterno claimed he never fully understood what Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary was telling him in 2002, after McQueary says he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in then shower. “But it sounds like some of the Paternos may have had a pretty good idea of Sandusky’s behavior,” Huber writes.

Read the complete story about Joe Paterno and the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

  • bellavistagirl6

    Jesus, can you please let the man rest in peace?

  • http://www.facebook.com/marty.mcdonald Marty

    Wow.. filled with Facts. Impressive, I would be embarrassed to even put my name to a blog post like this

  • http://www.facebook.com/dougalmac Douglas

    This isn’t journalism. This is rumor, innuendo and unsubstantiated speculation. No facts. No documentation. Just “some guy believes that.” Are you kidding me with this drivel? Everyone who knows this situation knows that Joe and Sandusky didn’t get along. Joe felt Sandusky wasn’t performing his coaching duties properly and was spending too much of his time on his “Second Mile” charity. So Joe told Sandusky he had to go. The rest of this nonsense is made up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    Why not do a fresh, hard-hitting story with the headline “Did McQueary Perjure Himself or Did the Grand Jury Report lie?”

    We know one of those is true because McQueary’s testimony at the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing was very different from the Grand Jury Report’s summary of his testimony.

    Isn’t even an Attorney General subject to disbarment or criminal charges for lying in an official document?

  • georgem44

    in case you are not up on the latest slang: “you are Penn State”, means you are a child molester…. the SCHOOL can buy their way out of this, but no honest person is ever going to forget that everyone, everyone in HAPPY VALLEY put money and football ahead of small children…

  • alexbarbadoro5

    The whole thing was a game of hot potato, & like it or not, Paterno was a player, and so was Tom Corbet, among many others.
    When do the victims get peace? No matter what the verdict, probably never b.c what’s done is done.

  • marthamoore1

    “Chilling”?? Really? How about if you and the rest of the media nincompoops tries using actual facts, not “some guy thinks” and speculation about the nefarious meaning of comments made by people allegedly “close to the situation.” As it is, there are idiots making comments like the one above stating that all hundreds of thousands of people who ever attended PSU or went to a football game there is a child molester. How stupid can people be? Well, about as stupid as the media makes them, by printing bullshit and calling it “fact” and “investigative journalism.”

    Here’s an idea for investigative journalism. Tom Corbett was AG when investigations into Sandusky started. Tom Corbett slow-walked, even halted, those investigations in favor of “Bonusgate.” Tom Corbett, a member of PSU’s Board of Trustees, claims he knew nothing about these allegations and was “surprised” when they came out in November. Either he was an incompetent AG or an incompetent BOT member. Or both.

    Or how about investigating the DA’s Presentment, which contained the flat-out lie that McQueary testified in the GJ investigation that he witnessed anal rape. Read his actual testimony and you see no such thing. Then investigate why Frank Noonan felt the need to comment on Joe’s “moral” failing when it is not the place of a law enforcement officer, in discussing an investigation, to make any moral judgment of people found not to have any culpability in a situation. How about you investigate why the DA felt the need to blame PSU for the entire Sandusky story, despite the fact that there are eight victims besides “Victim #2,” an unnamed, un-interviewed boy whom someone saw in the shower with Sandusky, doing something no one has heard a definite description of. Eight victims who are wiling to testify to Sandusky’s actions outside the PSU campus. Eight victims he met through TSM, not PSU. And yet the DA focuses on PSU. Why?

    Here’s something from someone who knew Joe. It was not in his DNA to protect himself or the football program at the expense of children. It was simply not possible. That’s from the heart. Here’s something a bit more logical. If he had intended to “hide” anything, why did he report what McQueary told him (of which there are three versions, at least) to anyone? Why not simply tell McQueary, “Don’t worry, kid, I’ll take care of everything” and then drop it? Why would he ensure that the head of the University Police — a REAL, gun-totin’ police force — heard the story first-hand rather than just from him, second-hand? Critical thinking skills alone would tell you that there was no attempt on Joe’s part to “cover up” anything.

    Perhaps your investigative journalists would like to look into why the Second Mile, a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse, did nothing at all when told by Tim Curley about the McQueary report in 2002. Nothing until Sandusky informed them that he was under investigation, when they removed any access to children from him.

    Tell you what, go find FACTS that PROVE that Joe knew that Sandusky was molesting children, THEN write something. Sandusky didn’t work for Joe after 1999, and they were not close friends. Why you, the media, continue to place blame on the person who has done more good for more people, on a very personal level, than anyone else at PSU is beyond me. Your sanctimonious attempts to make yourselves look like “investigative” journalists are pathetic; what you’re really doing is making shit up to sell your magazine.

  • godmilow1

    I agree with several other comments. Let it rest. Joe Paterno is gone, Sandusky will have to face the music and probably will spend the remainder of his life in jail where he cannot hurt another young boy. In fact, from what I hear he will be in for a very rough time in jail. Pedophiles are not well liked by the majority of inmates.

  • dcc1317

    crawl back in your hole with the other “journalists” who have either forgotten or never learned to write a story based on facts…shame on you and the editors who allow this garbage to be written

  • suburbdog1

    Surprising how many Paterno sycophants want this story to just go away and “let Joe Pa rest in peace.” Paterno would be proud that his reputation for covering up and letting things slide is being carried on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001899888372 Willie

    Another salacious conspiracy from Robert Huber.
    I guess you don’t need any actual evidence to prosecute a lawsuit anymore. Just the lack of integrity to blow circumstantial evidence out of proportion with media hype and a total disregard for whose character gets assassinated.

  • vtr857

    Penn Staters appear to still be hovering between the anger and denial phases. I assumed acceptance would have sunk in by now, but apparently not yet. I guess once the entire story comes out, then they’ll finally relent. But they continue to surprise me so who knows.

  • mps4949@gmail.com

    From Mike49

    I feel all your pain. I really do! I have admired JoePa for the past five decades. Yes, I’m that old! LoL! For Joe Paterno to enjoy the resolution he unquestionably deserves, he needs your unquestionable support. But you all still don’t get it! For Joe’s great legacy to ever trump, make secondary that infamous event, you and I must accept the condemnation for JoePa’s behavior. The same condemnation millions of mothers and fathers are feeling across the nation! Here are the “facts.”

    The overriding controversial issue concerning Shower 2002 deals very specifically with a 24 hour period, from that evening through the next day. Hyperbole, overstatement, emotionalism must be set aside for clarity and understanding to establish themselves. The following will provide that clarity, that understanding.

    Everybody is all over the place as regards the incident called Shower 2002. But the reality of the situation is really all about one day in March of 2002. One day in which two people interacted with one another to the exclusion basically of the entire outside world. During that one day no alumni, no Board of Trustees, no police, no Child Protective Services, no District Attorney where made aware, knew about Shower 2002. And it is about Shower 2002 that I have concentrated my interest. An interest without any preconceived assumption, bias, or over the top emotionalism.

    Again I, like yourselves, have always admired, praised JoePa. But his role in the 2002 incident was even more critical, more prominent, more serious than all of the rest who were involved. Why? How? Based on recorded testimony from Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary in two separate court hearings, the evidence and the facts, both circumstantial and direct, scream out the following observations! Scream out the following conclusions!

    Despite his emotionally paralyzed condition as a result of Shower 2002, McQueary went to the one man he relied upon to provide the proper council, the understanding, the right direction. It was Joe Paterno who then proudly announced to the redhead that he had done the right thing and now let him, JoePa, take care of the reporting of the whole incident to others. Paterno was going to take care of everything to the relief of McQueary. But Joe Paterno had really only one reasonable, moral choice on March 2, 2002 — to have McQueary report Sandusky to the police, immediately without hesitation! Period! End of paragraph!

    Why? Because in Shower 2002, there was reasonable doubt that Sandusky was acting properly and decently with the little boy. And when that kind of reasonable doubt occurs, an American citizen — a human being — is mandated by law, moral and legal, to report any act such as an alleged child molestation. Immediately without hesitation!

    Call it “fondling,” “touching,” caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed, private, university gymnasium on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. Period! In this kind of situation, even if one has to err, one always errs on the side of safety — a child’s safety.

    But JoePa did a curious thing upon that meeting with the graduate coach. Unbelievably McQueary, the absolute most important person in this whole story, the witness to the alleged sexual assault of a little boy, was dismissed by Paterno. He was in effect, sent home! Amazingly, that single action, all by itself, now made Joe Paterno the primary figure, the guidance director of this whole affair. He had placed himself squarely in the middle of this tragic story. He transformed himself into a new witness — by himself, for himself.

    And Paterno then spent an additional day perusing, contemplating what to do about an event that was 1) none of his immediate concern; 2) an alleged horrific crime that was not a chain of command issue; 3) an episode he personally had not witnessed. But alas, Paterno was now McQueary’s surrogate. Again, a role he himself had instantaneously set up — for himself, by himself.

    Delaying the reporting of the crime for 24 hours caused yet another ethical problem for JoePa. In order to be the self created orchestrator of this filthy revelation, Paterno consciously excluded the victim child from any consideration. That is exactly what he did. He trivialize the victim child by making him invisible, ignored, and nonexistent! Exactly what McQueary and his father had done the night before! The most important figure in this sordid affair became the most unimportant! JoePa forgot, gave up all concern for the little boy‘s safety!

    Again JoePa, by this action, had made himself immediately a surrogate witness, made himself in charge of describing what occurred in the shower, made himself the sole disseminator of information, and made himself the sole decider as to whom would know of this incident.

    Paterno hesitated to do the right action. Why? Because the image of Sandusky instantly replaced the image of the little boy. And please, this was not an act of sexual harassment that could be delayed for evidence to be collected later. This was a shower room activity that was, well, like when there is a fire. You either throw water on it, or call 911, or do both. But in either case, you act immediately without hesitation. Immediately without hesitation! Immediately without hesitation!

    When Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary failed to act, immediately and without hesitation, the fire burned for the next nine years.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    @Mike49 -

    I think it is clear that the reason McQueary did not call the police in 2002 was that he was trying to get a coaching job at Penn State, and he knew that snitching on a powerful and famous ex-coach would sink his chance of getting a coaching job at Penn State and maybe anywhere.

    The problem is that whistle blowers who do the right thing and report suspected crimes receive virtually no legal protection from retribution and often suffer more than the criminals. You want people to report suspected crimes, then provide whistle blowers with strong legal protection.

    The bottom line is that we don’t know if calling the police in 2002 would have made any difference because we have heard nothing from the alleged victim. If that victim had told police in 2002 that it was just horseplay, then Sandusky would not have been arrested just as he was not arrested in 1998 when he admitted hugging 2 boys in the campus showers to the University Police, the District Attorney and the PA Dept. of Public Welfare.

    I think the University Police, the District Attorney and the PA Dept. of Public Welfare failed far more in 1998 than Paterno or anyone else in 2002. They failed both professionally as law enforcement agencies as well as morally. If they had done their job in 1998, Sandusky would not have been in the campus showers in 2002 for McQueary to see.

  • mps4949@gmail.com

    To Tim

    Thanks for your response. I know you are trying to make some sense out of this whole mess. But your speculations add nothing to the legality nor the morality of Shower 2002! Sorry!

    I agree about your take on McQueary’s actions. But there is no proof to support your assertion. Therefore your view is irrelevant.

    YOU: “You want people to report suspected crimes, then provide whistle blowers with strong legal protection.”

    Me: Tim, you’ve gone way over the proverbial line here with an opinion untenable and downright inaccurate. All crimes reported are by witnesses or by victims. No one down at the police station ever refers to these reporters of crimes as “whistle blowers!” No way! LoL!

    The only time “whistle blower” is used is to identify a person either in a corporate post or a governmental job who reveals, discloses an on-going malfeasance. Neither McQueary nor Paterno would ever be referred to as whistle blowers. And therefore would never need the type of “protection” a whistle blower might encourage.

    No, Shower 2002 was about the failure to report a crime immediately and without hesitation. The failure to report to the right authorities and within a certain critical time frame.

    YOU: “The bottom line is that we don’t know if calling the police in 2002 would have made any difference because we have heard nothing from the alleged victim. If that victim had told police in 2002 that it was just horseplay, then Sandusky would not have been arrested just as he was not arrested in 1998 when he admitted hugging 2 boys in the campus showers to the University Police, the District Attorney and the PA Dept. of Public Welfare.”

    Me: The bottom line is that we can make no assumptions nor speculations as to what “might” have happened if 911 were called. Your “ifs” are worthless speculations of unknown and unattainable future events. They are speculations that contribute nothing to the issues surrounding all of Penn State. And what happened in the Shower 1998 investigation, does not necessarily follow what would happen in the Shower 2002 investigation — an investigation that was never going to be transpired.

    YOU “If they (the police, the DA, Public Welfare) had done their job in 1998, Sandusky would not have been in the campus showers in 2002 for McQueary to see.”

    Me: Tim, nice thought but totally and completely irrelevant to anything having to do with Shower 2002, Paterno, and McQueary. Your “ifs” would never be allowed in any court, including the Court of Public Opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    @Mike 49:
    1. It is a fact that McQueary was asking for a job at Penn State in 2002 because when he phoned Paterno, the first thing Paterno said was that he had no job for him.

    Why else would McQueary not call the police in 2002 if he wasn’t worried what would happen to him if he did?

    2. McQueary is considered a whistle blower otherwise he would have been fired because he erred more than Paterno given that he was the eyewitness.Google McQueary whistle blower and read some of those many articles.

    3. McQueary did not see a crime, he just suspected one. The Grand Jury Report lied when it said McQueary saw “anal intercourse.” All he saw was a naked Sandusky with his arms around the waist of a naked boy. He saw no sexual contact. Read his extensive testimony at the preliminary hearing. In 1998, Sandusky admitted to police that he hugged boys in the showers and was not arrested.

    4. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate what might have been in an online discussion. Almost all the blame is being put on Paterno when many others, including law enforcement agencies, are far more culpable.

    5. We still have heard nothing from the alleged victim McQueary saw in 2002, so we do not know if a sexual assault happened. If that alleged victim eventually testifies that Sandusky did not sexually assault him, then we will know that Paterno calling the police in 2002 would not have stopped Sandusky.

    That is not an “unattainable future event.” It is likely that the alleged victim will eventually come forward and testify one way or the other about the 2002 shower incident McQueary saw.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    @Mike 49:

    You said “Again JoePa, by this action, had made himself immediately a surrogate witness, made himself in charge of describing what occurred in the shower, made himself the sole disseminator of information, and made himself the sole decider as to whom would know of this incident.”

    That is wrong in several ways.

    First, a surrogate witness has a specific meaning. It is person who reads testimony into a court record if the actual witness cannot be there. There was a surrogate witness to read Paterno’s Grand Jury testimony at the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing.

    Second, all Paterno became when McQueary told him what he saw and suspected in 2002 was a hearsay witness, the same as McQueary’s father, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schultz.

    Third, McQueary was free at any time to tell anyone else or phone the police. Paterno did not tell him to keep it secret. Paterno arranged for McQueary to tell Curley and Schultz.

    McQueary and Paterno followed PA law in reporting to a superior. The problem is that the PA law proved deficient in this case because Curley, Schultz and/or Spanier apparently broke the law by not reporting it to the police or federal authorities.

    It was similar in 1998 when the DA couldn’t charge Sandusky because there was no PA law that made it a crime for a naked man to hug a naked boy in the showers.

  • mps4949@gmail.com

    Tim

    1. I will back off my criticism of your whistle blower claim. You may be right about it applying to McQueary. And if McQueary was considered a whistle blower, that law was automatically applied here, he was actually placed under its protection, Yes? No? But nevertheless, I think the University wanted to protect his employment anyway because he was viewed as being an asset to the school‘s future legal actions, not a liability.

    2. Paterno was fired as coach not because he was a “whistle blower,” but because he didn’t report the kid’s fate in a timely manner (immediately without hesitation). He didn’t report enough, fast enough!

    3. I still believe you are “over speculating” on why McQueary called JoePa. Upon receiving his call, Joe immediately, as you wrote, told Mike the job was not his. But Mike immediately stated to Joe that he was calling for another reason. And I think through revealed testimony, McQueary was totally and completely distracted that night because of his recognition of Sandusky — a man whom he recognized as a long time colleague of JoePa. And that was the reason he delayed reporting; and that was the reason he called Paterno. Again, testimony by the father, Joe, and McQueary supports this notion as being the most viable.

    4. Tim, you need to read both the Grand Jury report and the Preliminary Hearing, word for word; sentence by sentence. In both of his testimonies McQueary was totally consistent and totally clear about what he witnessed. And what he witnessed does not fall under or can be considered, mere speculation. I paraphrase his words:

    “The boy had both of his hands up and placed against the wall. Sandusky’s hips were concealing, blocking off the boy’s hips. Sandusky’s arms and hands were around the boy’s chest.”

    McQueary made it very clear in both testimonies, that he saw no insertion, no intercourse, no actual sodomy. But he did say that his immediate thought, what came to mind, was that a sexual act was going on. That was a reasonable conclusion.

    McQueary’s only indecisiveness and lack of detail came when he reported to Paterno. And Paterno testified both times in depositions, that he told Schultz and Curley that McQueary did in fact tell him something of a “sexual nature” had gone on in the shower.

    Finally Tim, if the above is not enough, please accept this:

    Call it “fondling,” “touching,” caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed, private, university gymnasium on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. Period! Not sure there was criminal activity going on? Well, the mere suspicion of a crime is enough information! And it’s that suspicion that legally (and morally) mandates a 911 call. And that call has to be made immediately because of the possible danger to the child. Yes, McQueary should have immediately made that call, but he didn’t. Instead he sought Paterno’s council as to what exactly to do. And at that very moment it was absolutely incumbent upon JoePa to have McQueary call 911. Why? Because of the kid. Because of the kid! In this kind of situation, even if one has to err, one always errs on the side of safety — a child’s safety. Sigh!

    5. Yes, you are correct. There were others more culpable. I let others deal with the others. But I chose the issue that deals only with Paterno and his mistake of forgetting about that little boy. It’s an issue so important because of what it can ultimately teach us all — always be immediate and without hesitation!

    6. Again, how Shower 1998 was investigated and adjudicated is not relevant, does not predict how Shower 2002 will be investigated and adjudicated.

    7. Tim, another one of your classic “ifs.”

    YOU: “If that alleged victim eventually testifies that Sandusky did not sexually assault him, then we will know that Paterno calling the police in 2002 would not have stopped Sandusky.’

    Don’t you think that after two investigations, Sandusky would have been finally watched more closely by Second Mile, the University, and Child Protective Servies? I do!

  • mps4949@gmail.com

    Tim

    In your latest post, you did the exact same thing I’ve railed against as did JoePa. You forgot, disregarded the victim child!

    As you espoused about what McQueary did and didn’t do, what JoePa was obligated to do, and about the law, and about everyone else — all that time a little boy was in harm’s way! This is about the kid! Not anything else! But everything else, as you just proved, is made to be more important. Not! So stop your excuses and accusations for everyone in existence from 1998 on! Stop and think about that innocent little boy being terrorized!

    Read closely! JoePa had no business, as you correctly point out, to relay second handedly, the first hand information he received!

    Read closely! JoePa witnessed nothing!

    Read closely! This was all none of JoePa’s affair!

    Read closely! He was the wrong person for McQueary to contact!

    Read closely! But when JoePa willingly accepted responsibility to relay the information, it suddenly became his responsibility to think first and foremost the sfety and well being of the kid — immediately and without hesitation.

    Tim, if you persist in defending any action that went against the kid’s welfare, you cease to be honest with me. And you cease to be honest with the most important person in your life — Tim!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    @Mike 49:

    1. I don’t understand why you think McQueary will be “an asset to the school‘s future legal actions.” His testimony has embarrassed Penn State, and he is a witness against two Penn State administrators.

    2. I think Paterno was fired mainly because of the lies in the Grand Jury Report and a panicked Board of Trustees who thought they had to do something.

    3.You complain that I am speculating and then you speculate even more. It is a fact that McQueary had been asking Paterno for a job before the 2002 incident.

    You didn’t answer my question of why McQueary didn’t phone the police immediately in 2002 other than he thought it would hurt his chances of getting a job.

    4.You are absolutely wrong that the Grand Jury Report is consistent with McQueary’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. The Grand Jury report stated that McQueary witnessed “anal intercourse” and reported that to Paterno.

    At the preliminary hearing, McQueary testified that he never used the term “anal” to anyone since day one. He testified he never saw any sexual contact, just suspected it, and he told Paterno few details and used no graphic language for Paterno.

    6. I disagree. Curley knew of shower 1998, so he may have decided that shower 2002 was more of the same and did not warrant another investigation.

    7. I have always thought that Sandusky should have been banned from unsupervised contact with Second Mile boys in 1998, and Penn State should have made sure he never got emeritus status or keys to University facilities when he retired in 1999.

    The University Police, DA, PA Dept. of Public Welfare and Second Mile all failed professionally and morally in 1998.

    8.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002814677581 Tim

    @Mike 49:

    We don’t know yet if was an “innocent little boy being terrorized”in 2002 because we have heard no testimony from him. As far as we know, the Attorney General has not identified him yet.

    It still could turn out that the alleged victim will testify he was not sexually assaulted in 2002, like the boys in 1998.

    I think you are wrong to put so much blame on Paterno. I think you are wrong that Paterno accepted all the responsibility once he talked to McQueary.

    You seem to forget that McQueary talked to two adults before Paternoand at anytime McQueary could have dialed 911 and reported it.

    Paterno followed the law in reporting. The problem was with the law, not Paterno. You be should be railing that the laws needs to be changed.

  • mps4949@gmail.com

    Okay Tim, I believe you will finally agree with me when I state: I think your bias for JoePa causes you to overstate the facts, dilute the facts, understate the facts so that JoePa can always come out as the only innocent in Shower 2002. And it’s a bias that will forever have folks thinking only of Paterno’s mistake and not of his incredible legacy And that is my intention here Tim, to expose Joe’s failure for what it is (and it is), so that we can finally resolve that issue and finally move on to the praise and continued exposure of that admirable Paterno heritage.

    Tim, I believe unless your honest about what the evidence reveals, you’re putting the hurt on my JoePa.

    I will demonstrate your bias point by point,. A bias, although existing and destructive to the memory of JoePa, I don’t believe it to be your intention to harm Paterno in any way.

    1. McQueary is very definitely an asset because his testimony will support Penn State’s relieving of duty of four administrators. He will be an asset to the University fighting any future wrongful termination lawsuits by those administrators. Tim, to say his testimony has embarrassed Penn State, is to once again forget, make invisible, the little boy whom he sreported in Shower 2002. This not about embarrassment. It’s about THE KID! PLEASE!

    2. Yes, I did answer your question (although it wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear). I think the evidence leans, supports more reasonably, that McQueary went to JoePa and not to the police, because of his recognition of Sandusky. Had it been a stranger, he no doubt would have called the police and not Paterno. What connection would Paterno have had with a stranger!? Your position, although possible, can never be proven and is actually irrelevant to my main issue and to Paterno. You overstate here.

    3. YOU: “The Grand Jury report stated that McQueary witnessed “anal intercourse” and reported that to Paterno.’

    You are correct here, the GJ is incorrect. But Tim, you clearly “understate” once again. McQueary in two testimonies opposed and refuted the GJ’s “anal” statement. And JoePa’s two depositions clearly showed “anal” was not mentioned. And Tim, you left out an act of a “sexual nature” was described to Paterno using those words.

    4. You: ’I disagree. Curley knew of shower 1998, so he may have decided that shower 2002 was more of the same and did not warrant another investigation.”

    You understate again. Schultz confirmed in the Prelim Hearing that the word “sexual” was used by Paterno to both he and Curley in describing what McQueary stated to Joe.
    And Curley and Schultz are both going to be burned for not taking this brief description to the police seriously. Shower 2002 was NOT more of the same because the “SEXUAL TERM WAS NOT EXPRESSED BY ANYONE” in Shower 1998.

    5. You make hyperbole and overstatement here when you write over and over your “ifs” about second Mile, 1998 , Curley etc. and etc. None of that is relevant to the central issue I raised, the only issue I raised, that being JoePa failing to have McQueary or himself dial 911 immediately and without hesitation!

    6. YOU: “We don’t know yet if was an “innocent little boy being terrorized” in 2002 because we have heard no testimony from him.”

    Overstatement once again. What you, I, and everyone else “didn’t know” is completely irrelevant. We all have no right to make an assumption that no harm was being done. In a situation like this you assume the worse but hope for the best. Why? Because the safety of the child is what must be everyone’s first and only concern. Again, “Call it “fondling,” “touching,” caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed, private, university gymnasium on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. Period! In this kind of situation, even if one has to err, one always errs on the side of safety — a child’s safety.”

    Tim, don’t tell me given the same situation, you wouldn’t alert trained professional authorities to investigate that strange sight. If the kid turned out to be the adult’s son, an investigation still would be warranted. And you the witness would be praised by all for your involvement. Be honest Tim, that’s what you and I would have done, what anyone would have done (had they not recognized and known Jerry Sandusky). Amen.

    7. Hyperbole and overstatement. What the alleged victim finally testifies to is completely irrelevant to what JoePa and McQueary were morally obligated to do in Shower 2002. There was a reasonable assumption that what was going on was harm to a minor. You react then! You don’t wait ten years later to have that suspicion confirmed or unconfirmed.

    8. YOU: “I think you are wrong that Paterno accepted all the responsibility once he talked to McQueary.”

    You understate and avoid facts. Paterno told McQueary he did the best thing by coming to him. And that he would take only the responsibility to alert the proper authorities. These are all facts disclosed, recorded, and a part of public record. This is exactly what JoePa said he would do!

    9. “You seem to forget that McQueary talked to two adults before Paterno and at anytime McQueary could have dialed 911 and reported it.”

    Yes, you are right here. But the you forget the “fact” McQueary didn’t call 911 and sought directly Paterno’s guidance and direction. Deal with the facts of what happened, not what McQueary didn’t do!

    Tin, I’ll give you a better, more plausible “if!“ Had it been revealed that it was Paterno’s grandson, he would have directed immediately and without hesitation all energy towards the kid. TOWARDS SAVING THE KID! Had it been McQueary’s daughter, he would have directed all energy TOWARDS SAVING THE KID! No discussion, only action — immediately without hesitation.

    10. What law should be changed? You don’t need a law to come to a little boy’s rescue. You need a sense of morality and plain common sense.

    Finally Tim, I’ve enjoyed our sharing. But you consistently and constantly continue to water down, eliminate any responsibility on Joe’s part. You know I’m right here but your bias won’t allow you to freely accept the facts, as do I. Facts where they freely are allowed to go!

    If your inclination is to continue to refute all of the facts I have clearly and WITHOUT PREJUDICE outlined, then please do not any longer reply to me. I’m exhausted. The truth makes me feel this way.