Penn State Goings-On

[Valmy]

Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that this amounted to perjury for the other two, right?

Didn't McQ say that Joe Pa cut him off when he was giving the details to him and only described the scene in detail in the later meeting?

[Valmy]

This is weird

The Penn State fallout is having a trickle-down effect on high school football recruiting.

Adam Ah Ching, a senior linebacker at Greer High School, told WYFF News 4's Kim Quintero that he's played football since he was 6 and has his sights set on playing college ball.

"When you're Polynesian, growing up, football is No. 1 in your life," said Ah Ching.

Ranked last year by ESPNU as the 26th linebacker prospect in the country, Ah Ching said he was paid a visit by Penn State's former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky.

"He came to my last spring game going into my senior season. He liked how I moved, laterally, and how gifted I am," said Ah Ching.

Source: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29738465/detail.html#ixzz1dR4u8qFU

Sandusky was recruiting for Penn State last year?  I mean even if Jerry didn't have this sex abuse thing over his head that is weird to send a retired coach to do that.  Not sure on the actual NCAA rules on that.

[Malthus]

Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that this amounted to perjury for the other two, right?

Didn't McQ say that Joe Pa cut him off when he was giving the details to him and only described the scene in detail in the later meeting?

Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

No mention of being cut off.

[The Minsky Moment]

Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?

There's a bunch of problems here.
First, the GJ didn't find perjury simply because the witnesses "downgraded"  what they were told in a colloquial sense.  The problem was those guys described what they heard as mere horseplay and thus not putting them on true notice of criminal activity.  But what Paterno describes is unequivocally a crime.  His testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with theirs and indeed is a key factual baisis formthe perjury charge.

Second,  based on the released GJ report, there is consistency between paternos account and the GA.  In order to postulate some inconsistency, you have to speculate about the specific testimony.  Its a pointless exercise because we don't knowee what was asked or answered specifically.  But the fact that the GJ didn't charge is evidence in itself that it probably didn't play out remotely like the scenario you paint above.
   
If one were to speculate . . . based on McQ's account, I find it unnlikely that under the circumstances, when McQ reported the matter to Paterno that we described the matter in precise and clinical graphic detail.  Certainly the GJ report does not suggest so.  I also find it unlikely that the prosecutor would have posed the leading question you suggest - since that would essentially be an invitation to set up a conflict between Paterno and his star witness. 

[alfred russel]

Wait what?  One of the victims recalled how upset Sandusky was after the meeting where Joe told him he was being "retired", and Jerry told the victim not to tell anybody about it.  Did Joe tell Jerry he was not eligible for the premium retirement package and Sandusky didn't want the shame of a subpar retirement package to spread?

I mean how gullible is a Board of Trustees supposed to be?  I am not claiming they need to take Paterno out and shoot him but he at least needed to be let go.  Besides it is not like Paterno has to go looking for another job, he is 84 years old and had delegated most of the grunt work of being a HC out years ago.

Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.

[Valmy]

Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

No mention of being cut off.

Re-read it and you are right.  I must have misremembered.

[Malthus]

Depends. If the prosecutor asked - as he evidendly asked the other two - "did McQ tell you he saw S. committing an act of anal sex on a young boy?" and he answered "no, he just told me he saw fondling or doing something of a sexual nature ", would that not be perjury? The GJ found that downgrading what McQ had told them perjury for the other two, right?

There's a bunch of problems here.
First, the GJ didn't find perjury simply because the witnesses "downgraded"  what they were told in a colloquial sense.  The problem was those guys described what they heard as mere horseplay and thus not putting them on true notice of criminal activity.  But what Paterno describes is unequivocally a crime.  His testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with theirs and indeed is a key factual baisis formthe perjury charge.

Second,  based on the released GJ report, there is consistency between paternos account and the GA.  In order to postulate some inconsistency, you have to speculate about the specific testimony.  Its a pointless exercise because we don't knowee what was asked or answered specifically.  But the fact that the GJ didn't charge is evidence in itself that it probably didn't play out remotely like the scenario you paint above.
   
If one were to speculate . . . based on McQ's account, I find it unnlikely that under the circumstances, when McQ reported the matter to Paterno that we described the matter in precise and clinical graphic detail.  Certainly the GJ report does not suggest so.  I also find it unlikely that the prosecutor would have posed the leading question you suggest - since that would essentially be an invitation to set up a conflict between Paterno and his star witness.

There is not really any "speculation" involved. The GJ states that McQ told P "what he had seen" - the very words used on p. 7. I can't imagine this being any less than what he testified to the GJ as having seen. There is nothing in the evidence to conclude, as your speculation does, that "what he had seen" was something other than what was reported.

In fact, if I may speculate in turn, that would beggar belief. If someone came to me and told me he was an eyewitness to my friend of many years "engaged in something of a sexual nature" with a young boy (and assuming I was not being a lawyer  ), what's the natural human response? "ARE YOU SURE it wasn't something innocent? ARE YOU SURE you were not mistaken?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, because I saw ... ". Certainly, we know McQ had no hesitation over later describing to the other two explicitly what he saw. Why do you think he would have pussyfooted around the matter earlier?

The fact is that both P. and the other two were consistent in a sense - they both chose to downplay the seriousness of what they had been told. In both cases, even if you believe their testimony, they were "on notice" to investigate - obviously, P more than the other two, which simply strengthens the case for P. being fired, as *even if you believe* he was "not told the full extent of it" (which, as I said, is really hard to believe and nothing in the material suggests it) he was on notice to do something about it, such as report to the police, which he failed to do. 

[Valmy]

Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.

Yes I read it.  Um how that contradict what I have been saying?  Paterno just boots him to the curb for no reason following an investigation into Sandusky for child molestation?  Just coincidentally?

I thought you said Sandusky did it on his own for the retirement benefits.

[alfred russel]

Not that I can see. First paragraph, page 7 has the GJ saying McQ went to Joe Pa's house and "reported what he had seen".

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/11/07/sandusky_grand_jury_presentment.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

No mention of being cut off.

It isn't explicit that he told him the full details. It is explicit he told the full details at a later meeting, but also explicit that Paterno was not there.

The Board of Trustees said at their conference that they were only relying on the grand jury report and other publicly available information. Taking them at their word, they did not have conclusive evidence that Joe Paterno knew of any other incident or that the incident he knew about involved something as serious as is alleged.

If they had a more convincing case to terminate (and really, it shouldn't take too much investigation to come up with one), they should have presented it. What do you think would have caused greater harm to the image of the school:

a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.

[Valmy]

a) Making a statement that they are gravely concerned about the reports and will thoroughly investigate them, but before the investigation results are in they can not terminate employees and thus Paterno can continue coaching with his status being evaluated day to day basis, or
b) Firing Paterno and having the students riot.

Um surely even if they decided not to terminate him they would have put him on administrative leave pending an investigation.

But from what I have read people support the Paterno firing and condemn the students.  So I am not sure how it hurts the image of the school.

[alfred russel]

Valmy, go through the testimony again. Sandusky was supposedly upset because Paterno said he wasn't going to be the future head coach, and he retired shortly after that.

Yes I read it.  Um how that contradict what I have been saying?  Paterno just boots him to the curb for no reason following an investigation into Sandusky for child molestation?  Just coincidentally?

Maybe. If I was on the board that would be a question I'd want to ask. Crazier coincidences have happened. Maybe Paterno decided he wanted to coach until he died of old age and one way of securing his position was to decapitate potential successors.

We are talking about the potential of guys to be ruthless enough to cover up serial child rape, surely Paterno may be that ruthless.

I thought you said Sandusky did it on his own for the retirement benefits.

I thought I read that in the report. Going back through there I didn't see it. Maybe I read it somewhere else, maybe I just got confused.

[Valmy]

I thought I read that in the report. Going back through there I didn't see it. Maybe I read it somewhere else, maybe I just got confused.

No worries I just did the same thing.  Lots of stuff going around about this thing.

[alfred russel]

Um surely even if they decided not to terminate him they would have put him on administrative leave pending an investigation.

But from what I have read people support the Paterno firing and condemn the students.  So I am not sure how it hurts the image of the school.

Fine, then administrative leave (although really, it isn't as though there is much harm in letting him keep going--it isn't likely he is covering up other child rapists).

I'd think the image of the school is more about the quality and character of the student body rather than the board of trustees.

[Valmy]

Maybe. If I was on the board that would be a question I'd want to ask. Crazier coincidences have happened. Maybe Paterno decided he wanted to coach until he died of old age and one way of securing his position was to decapitate potential successors.

We are talking about the potential of guys to be ruthless enough to cover up serial child rape, surely Paterno may be that ruthless.

Well I would hope that, at the time Paterno and company thought Jerry had just made a mistake, after all he was not actually charged with anything, but felt he could not be head coach and it just snowballed from there.

[Valmy]

Fine, then administrative leave (although really, it isn't as though there is much harm in letting him keep going--it isn't likely he is covering up other child rapists).

I'd think the image of the school is more about the quality and character of the student body rather than the board of trustees.

Well the image of what happens on Saturday has to be considered as well.  A really ugly or overwhelmingly supportive response by 100,000 Penn State fans when Paterno runs out there would have been very damaging.  And then there is Paterno and McQueary going through Columbus, Ohio next week...