<p>McQueary told JoePa enough that JoePa should have known this was a serious criminal matter and not something to be kicked quietly upstairs.</p>
<p>Sitting at Paterno’s kitchen table McQueary related what he saw. He said Sandusky was involved in ‘sexual’ act with a child. He did not describe it as sodomy or anal sex. It did describe it as ‘extremely sexual,’ USA TODAY’s Kevin Johnson reports.</p>
<p>this is where I have empathy for McQueary. Frankly if Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier wasn’t sure what McQueary meant by sexual act, then they had a responsibility to ask to be sure THEY understood. For all of them to feign not knowing it was sexual demonstrates their own lack of authority and responsible behavior.</p>
<p>I think I’d almost prefer a deliberate “this is awful, we can’t let it hit the press” approach than this reprehensible “oh, he’s exaggerating, it’s no big deal and we can let it go” concept that is so pervasive. At least the former would indicate they took child abuse seriously. Here we just have a so-what, nothing to do here kind of attitude. It’s appalling that they really felt there was no actionable behavior here — they weren’t covering up, because they didn’t think there was anything to cover. Eeeeewwwww</p>
<p>"…they weren’t covering up, because they didn’t think there was anything to cover." </p>
<p>^ They knew exactly what they were doing. Don’t be fooled.</p>
<p>They may knew exactly what they were doing but the problem is McQueary, his Dad and Paterno recollection of all the conversations are ambiguous and might not be specific enough. McQueary said he had no doubt in his mind but he cannot point to any specific words or phrase or conversation that invoke specific understanding that all parties are talking about rape. It is not going to be easy convicting Curley and Schultz. Again, the case against Sandusky is quite different matter.</p>
<p>I think that bclintonk nailed it on the head when he described the atmosphere at PSU under Paterno, and how it led to this particular incident as well as, who knows how many more, that have never been reported. People have compared it to the silence by the Roman Catholic Church, and their protection of pedeophile priests–but I also think that it mirrors the actions of the service academies that came to light during the cheating scandals. It was only after all of those offenses were made public that many new requirements were introduced to insure that this type of activity could not happen again. One main requirement was that there had to be an even number of staff that had come from outside the academy as those that had attended it themselves. Just like PSU, there had been way too much incestuous activity–people overlooking unethical activity in their attempt to protect their Alma Mater. The only non-PSU individual involved, and she tried to raise the red flag, was Tripony–who was promptly gotten rid of.</p>
<p>Well, Judge Wenner just ruled that the case is going to trial for Curley and Schultz.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they were talking about a child, it didn’t have to be understood that it was “rape.” Any kind of sexual act with a child is a crime because a child does not have the legal capacity to consent (therefore it is technically a rape). McQ has insisted that he described a “sexual act.”</p>
<p>What BC said. Do you need it spelled out, really?? Man-boy-something with sex–stop right there. I know enough to be very worried. And do the right thing.</p>
<p>A child has nothing with what I am saying, I think everyone will stipulate that this is a minor we are talking about. The proof has to be that Curley and Schultz knew specifically that it was intercourse. It is not definitively established that Curley and Schultz understood it was intercourse. It is all implied that they must have known. I wish McQueary at least could testify that at least either party has mentioned once that it was real sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>It is unclear what “sexual act” mean in this case. Is showering naked touching and lathering soap a sexual act? McQueary cannot point to any words or conversations that establish an understanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it simply has to be proved that they knew something “sexual” had been witnessed between S. and a minor child. Any act of a sexual nature between an adult and a child is criminal, whether it is “intercourse” or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. They claimed it was not of a sexual nature.</p>
<p>^^oops, cross post.</p>
<p>I am not a lawyer but I am just restating where the defense is going with this. Most reasonable people would not bury this and try to do something about it.</p>
<p>But most reasonable people don’t have the reputation of a prestigious football program weighing in, and all the good it does. Weighing the good against the bad, who’s to say what any of us would have done, if we were caught up in the Penn State football aura?</p>
<p>In retrospect, it’s very apparent what should have been done. I think they were hoping it would not be their problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, well, then, that lets him off the hook.</p>
<p>Wait a minute… which “severe sexual acts” between a man and a little boy don’t merit a phone call to the police on the spot?</p>
<p>It is frustrating to me that McQueary danced around the term. It seems very clear to him now that it was sexual intercourse or sodomy, but he cannot get around to say it. Can anyone know for sure what specifically severe sexual acts really are?</p>
<p>He said he didn’t see penetration. That’s reasonable. But he described what he did see. I think it’s clear to understand what was going on.</p>
<p>Paterno told the grand jury McQueary told him he saw someone “fondling, whatever you would call it, a young boy.” “Fondling” has an explicitly sexual connotation, and fondling a young boy is a felony. JoePa further testified to the grand jury that he reported to Curley that “we have a problem” with Sandusky. Curley told the grand jury that Paterno told him “about the shower incident,” and Curley was sufficiently disturbed by what he heard that he confronted Sandusky and told him not to use Penn State facilities with young boys.</p>
<p>At a minimum, then, JoePa knew something “sexual” was going on, and he discussed the incident with Curley–which Curley acknowledged in his grand jury testimony. Schultz testified to the grand jury that he met with Paterno and Curley to discuss the incident, which he described as involving “disturbing, inappropriate behavior” in the shower. Both Curley and Schultz were disturbed enough that they took follow-up action, Curley confronting Sandusky about the shower incident and informing him that he was no longer welcome to bring young boys to the Penn State athletic facilities, and Schultz by flatly banning Sandusky from campus. Yet in their grand jury testimony and again in today’s hearing, both Curley and Schultz denied knowing that “something sexual” was involved, and both claimed to have no idea the incident might involve criminal conduct that should be reported to the police. </p>
<p>It just doesn’t add up. JoePa described it a “fondling a young boy,” certainly “something sexual” and clearly a crime. Either he forgot to mention that in his conservations with Curley and Schultz AND McQueary is lying about what he told Schultz and Curley AND YET Curley and Schultz found the whole thing sufficiently disturbing that they banned Sandusky, first from bringing young boys to the athletic facilities and then from the campus entirely (in which case Curley and Schultz did not perjure themselves); or Curley and Schultz lied to the grand jury and lied again today at their preliminary hearing. Curley testified today that he confronted Sandusky because he thought the “horseplay was inappropriate.” You know, someone might slip on a bar of soap and fall or something. Schultz testified today that “I thought maybe he [Sandusky] grabbed the boy’s genitals, I don’t know the definition of sexual, but that’s certainly inappropriate.” Yeah, so it wouldn’t be “sexual” for a 58-year-old man to grab a 10-year-old boy’s genitals? It might not occur to you that’s a criminal offense? Even though you’ve testified that you were aware of the earlier 1998 case involving the same adult and a similarly young boy? </p>
<p>Schultz’s and Curley’s lawyers tried to argue today that there’s no corroboration for McQueary’s account of the conversation that took place between McQueary, Schultz, and Curley, so it’s just “he said v. he said” which is not enough to get a perjury conviction. The prosecutor made it clear he’s going to put Paterno on the stand to give his account of what was discussed. That makes Paterno the key witness in the Curley and Schultz cases, I think. Either Paterno gave his boss something less than a full account of what McQueary told him (which Paterno characterized as “fondling a young boy,” probably his euphemism for any kind of sexual contact but it doesn’t matter because he clearly knew it was “sexual” and ought to have known it was criminal), or Curley and Schultz are lying, and continue to lie on the witness stand. Either way it looks bad for Penn State.</p>
<p>There’s still a lot we don’t know about the relationship between JoePa and Sandusky. (Was JoePa surprised by anything McQueary told him? Or was he simply worried that the cat was now out of the bag? or…)</p>
<p>I think we know enough to imagine JoPa right now in his home, wondering why the s$it hit the fan 1 year too early. For him.</p>