<p>^ I agree…was thinking the exact same thing…he mentions “fondling” , “or
doing something of a sexual nature”</p>
<p>“Fondling” or “doing something of a sexual nature” is still sexual abuse and still should have been investigated IF that is what was said.</p>
<p>^^without question^^^ i am just of belief Joe knew</p>
<p>GMTplus7: Yes. I believe it is possible, at least, that in 2002 McQueary failed to communicate what he is now saying he did. For one of three reasons, I guess, or a combination of any or all of them – (1) He wasn’t actually as sure then what he saw as he is now. He has adjusted his memory in retrospect to make things much clearer and to make it so that he did more than he really did to stop the abuse. (2) He was so embarrassed about the whole thing, and intimidated by Paterno and Schultz, that he DID use euphemisms and qualified what he was saying, and failed to understand how badly he might be misunderstood. (3) He was led by Curley and Schultz to soften his story, and felt guilty about that later.</p>
<p>Of course, if all he reported was fondling, or rubbing, or even just horseplay, it was still inappropriate (especially in light of the earlier incident, which Schultz at least knew about, but McQueary wouldn’t have), and still worth doing something about. And we can easily believe that it would have been right – not legally required by the mandated reporting statute, but right – to call in the police and DPW on that basis alone. But I think most people would respond somewhat differently to “horseplay” vs. “anal sex”, and I’m saying these people’s actions were consistent with what they say they heard. So maybe they are lying to cover up how awful they are, or maybe that’s really what they heard.</p>
<p>JHS, i think he ,the GA,said exactly what he saw, and the others he spoke to changed the tone of the story down to vague terminology</p>
<p>Schultz comes off as a piece of work…first he testifies that he doesn’t remember what the GA told him…then states that Sandusky “might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy’s genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy”</p>
<p>BUT</p>
<p>then goes on to testify that the allegations were “not that serious” and that he and Curley “had no indication a crime had occurred.”</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State, Joe Paterno and failure of power - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7208029/penn-state-joe-paterno-failure-power]Penn”>Penn State, Joe Paterno and failure of power - ESPN)</p>
<p>"…The entire edifice of the Penn State monument is crumbling, yet no one involved seems capable of producing the most obvious, and decent, response, to acknowledge that each of these men failed to uphold his responsibilities spectacularly. They failed their communities, and they failed the eight young boys the state is accusing Sandusky of sexually abusing. </p>
<p>The legendary Paterno failed. He was the first of the Penn State athletic inner circle to be told of the shower incident nine years ago, and all he did was tell his university superiors. Then, according to his son, the great character builder and shaper of young people essentially never gave it a second thought, going back to designing plays for third-and-short and trying to devise ways to beat Wisconsin. Four days after Sandusky’s indictment, instead of taking true responsibility and making an immediate and public plan to put the alleged victims first, the coach is scurrying from the responsibilities of leadership he ostensibly has built a life around.</p>
<p>Curley and Schultz, who face charges of perjury, failed. The grand jury report states on pages 6-7 that, a week and a half after telling Paterno what he had seen, the graduate assistant “reported to Curley and Schultz that he witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers.” According to the grand jury report, Curley later told the graduate assistant that he had met with Sandusky to advise Sandusky that he “was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward.” But neither official took the allegations to the police or reported them to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. In other words, all Penn State did was to ensure that if Sandusky sexually abused a child in the future, at least it wouldn’t take place on campus. </p>
<p>Spanier, president of the university since 1995, failed, too. He might not face charges, but he has known about this incident for nine years and, as the indictment became public this weekend, chose to use his public comments not to condemn a systematic failure but to defend Schultz and Curley without significantly mentioning the pain and plight of the alleged victims.</p>
<p>Finally, The Second Mile failed. The charity, founded by Sandusky in 1977 and which state prosecutors say he used to abuse eight boys over a 15-year period, was told directly of the 2002 incident by Curley and Schultz. Yet the organization – which counts Paterno, Franco Harris, Mark Wahlberg and other famous lights as honorary members of its board of directors – did nothing to keep Sandusky away from children or away from the foundation for another six years. This week, now that the entire shameful facade has crumbled, it released a statement claiming ignorance: “At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report.” </p>
<p>It is incongruous that any adult with basic common sense – especially those who supposedly have worked with children and young adults for decades – could conclude that there was no wrongdoing after a report that a grown man was inappropriately in a shower with a child. Being in a shower inappropriately with a child or adolescent is the finding of wrongdoing. Paterno, Schultz and Curley all appear to be using the same defense: that the graduate student who came forward did not detail specifically what he saw. Which begs the question: After being told that an adult, who to that point had worked with children for 25 years, was caught showering in your locker room with a child for any reason, just how much more specificity did Paterno, Schultz and Curley actually need? </p>
<p>Regardless of the ultimate credibility of the graduate student’s grand jury testimony (and a critical gap exists between Paterno’s and the graduate student’s testimonies), Schultz, Curley, Spanier and Paterno are unwilling to admit being blinded by the power of Penn State football. That power prevented other, less powerful people from coming forward. Their first, fatal reaction was the impulse to protect the program, keep it from embarrassment, to protect personal relationships and now what’s left of the precious, sacred institution. </p>
<p>The power of the names Penn State and Paterno were, it is now revealed through chilling grand jury testimony, far more important than the children now forever renamed Victim 1 and Victim 2. According to the state grand jury investigation, at least four eyewitnesses say they saw Sandusky committing inappropriate acts with children, and Sandusky admitted another to one victim’s mother. Yet an entire community was cowed by the power of the institution. The past several days at Penn State have been a case study of Joe Paterno and the failure of power…"</p>
<p>I am a mom, and if I were told by my son that he had been “showering” with a naked middle-aged man, I would go ballistic and straight to the cops. I would react with equal horror to the terms “fondling” or “horseplay”- any of this crap. It’s sexual abuse, period. In this culture, normal middle-aged men don’t shower naked with young boys. Why were these boys even showering at all? I am very worried by this attitude that a grown man showering with a boy could be “misinterpreted”. How naive are these Penn State people? They are covering their asses. May they all rot in hell along with the priests and other child molesters who get away with this crap.</p>
<p>Paterno knew, without question. How do we know this? Because he did what he was legally required to do in such a situation: He reported it to his superior. He could have called the police himself. He could have fired Sandusky. He could have pushed his higher-ups to contact the authorities. He could have reached out to the abused children and their families. Instead, he did the minimum that was legally required of him, and not one jot more. Despicable.</p>
<p>And by the way, what are the Trustees dithering about? Isn’t it obvious to them that Paterno has to go immediately?</p>
<p>I am sure the Trustees are in as much a state of shock as everyone else. They are busy doing the CYA thing - gathered all of their attorneys together to dot the i’s and cross the t’s (they don’t want to get sued in blowback.) </p>
<p>But there are issues that need further resolution. For example, do the gang of four forfeit their pensions? What about the university’s agreement to provide legal counsel to them? </p>
<p>To my way of thinking, the MOST guilty 9(after Sandusky) is Paterno. He failed the boys, his athletes, his graduate assistant, and then failed the administration above him.</p>
<p>JHS – Paterno’s statements to the grand jury clearly echos that of McQuery. This is why the grand jury found McQuery “extremely credible.”
</p>
<p>What makes no sense is Curley’s claim to the grand jury.<br>
Even if you believe McQuery didn’t tell Curley something sexual occurred, Paterno states he told Curley.</p>
<p>These Penn State officials, coaches, administrators, and the rest are fathers. What would they have done if some middle-aged man had been fiddling around naked in a shower with their sons? Where is their moral compass? I just don’t understand how they could stand back and let this happen.</p>
<p>^^ The moral compass was overwhelmed by Big Football. At Penn State (and some others), nothing is more important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Trustees will let everyone go who is in any way connected. Some will not have violated the law, and when the dust settles will file suits for wrongful dismissal. Their lawyers will claim that in a rush to judgement in order to deflect the heat, the university damaged the public’s image of their clients to such an extent that they cannot find employment. For the sake of damage control, the university has to act as quickly as they can but not so quickly that it appears they were indifferent to the facts. They also have to draft statements to the press regarding all their positions and actions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This pretty much encapsulates this sorry mess…</p>
<p>Tutu, you’re right. That is a complete denial that McQueary said anything sexual had occurred, and I don’t believe that at all. How could Curley have said that and meant it, since the actions he said he took – taking away Sandusky’s keys, informing management of The Second Mile, telling Sandusky not to bring boys on campus – all show he understood perfectly well that something sexual had been going on?</p>
<p>Some extremely interesting background on just how close the football coaches and player families were. It also provides some more rationale for the graduate assistant’s (Mike McQueary) actions in talking to his father first before reporting what he saw:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Michael</a> Weinreb on Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky, and dealing with the controversy at Penn State - Grantland](<a href=“http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state]Michael”>» Growing Up Penn State)</p>
<p>Bill Clinton’s testimony before Office of the Independent Counsel prosecutors investigating the president’s relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky</p>
<p>“When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996, and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition.”</p>
<p>“But they did involve inappropriate, intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended at my insistence in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.”</p>
<p>“I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions, including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term of sexual relations, as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998, deposition, and questions concerning alleged subordination of perjury, obstruction of justice and intimidation of witnesses.”</p>
<p>“When she used two different terms, sexual relationship, if she meant by that what most people mean by it, then that is not an untruthful statement.”</p>
<p>“believe – I believe that the common understanding of the term, if you say two people are having a sexual relationship, most people believe that includes intercourse. So if that’s what Ms. Lewinsky thought, then this is a truthful affidavit. I don’t know what was in her mind, but if that’s what she thought, the affidavit is true.”</p>
<p>A protestor’s picket sign at Penn State</p>
<p>** “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” **</p>