Yeah there's a lot of "dear in the headlights" type reactions going on with this incident. Still though, I think drawing a lot of conclusions about the facts of the case is misguided. We'll see what comes out at a trial.

I doubt the AG's office is incented to protect Paterno in any way.

In order to discern Paterno's role in this sordid affair, let's consider the grand jury text. I quote at length, highlighting parts that should raise questions:

[begin grand jury text]

“As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

“The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno, head football coach of Penn State. The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, when 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 testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, 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.

““Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported 'disturbing' and 'inappropriate' conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student. [Schultz] denied having such conduct [sodomy] reported to him either by Paterno or the graduate assistant."

[end text]

So: Paterno learned of something improper on Saturday morning. "The very next day" he called Curley. The very next day? Why not immediately? The grand jury should get Paterno's and Sandusky's phone records to see if there were calls between the two between the time Paterno learned of the incident and when he reported it to Curley.

Schultz says that Paterno said "disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct, but nothing of sodomy. So either Paterno wasn't told of the sodomy by McQuery or didn't tell Schultz of it. Or Schultz is lying about what Paterno told him.

And nobody questioned Sandusky about this? Again, if there are phone records, they should be obtained.

Why wouldn't McQuery be specific as to what he saw? If he was reporting it at all, why would he minimize or not accurately report what he saw?

Bradley needs to go next...tonight. **** the game

andy - thanks for lifting the actual language from the GJ testimony.

Again, and to what you bolded:

That seems to be very straightforward testimony from McQueary - that he reported to Paterno "what he had seen." Maybe all this obfuscation/confusion around exactly what Paterno knew is pointless, as McQueary testified pretty plainly (it seems) that Paterno did know about the anal rape (in that McQueary reported what he saw take place).

In which case Paterno downgraded the seriousness of McQueary's report: "graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".

The only thing that doesn't fit that when you piece this together: why isn't Paterno being charged with perjury?

I could be wrong, I'm not fighting with you. I get the feeling that before all this is over you are going to see alot of the principals turning on each other like cats and dogs.

McQuery is going to say he told everyone, Paterno will get a doctor to testify that he is mentally incompetent, and the AD and the VP are going to say McQuery is a liar. And based on his inaction, McQuery is going to get destroyed on the witness stand.

The only reason not to (other than being a POS, obviously) is if you know the cops are just going to let him walk out of the room, again.

Which is somewhere on the "might actually be true" scale at this point.

This. The actions of the parties involved just since the allegations were made public are reprehensible in their own right.

Good thoughts and of course why wouldn't McQueary call the police himself and even try to put a stop to it. If Sandusky cops a plea on this we may never know the full extent of how awful this was. I have my doubts though that the prosecution will plea bargain on this one unless they can get Sandusky to basically turn on his alleged enablers.

You are still assuming they didn't ask McQuery the details of his conversation with Paterno because they didn't report that they did in the grand jury document. Of course it was pertinent. Of course it was necessary. The grand jury document no doubt contains omissions. It is a very one-sided tool.

Paterno is likely vulnerable to a perjury charge. It's just that it is a harder case and Paterno will be used to make the existing case. The perjury charges against Curley and Schultz might themselves not exist if the failure to report didn't exist.

Read the timeline. PSU University "Police" DID let him walk.

Taken from a site that compiled a timeline but you can see this for yourself in that grand jury pdf.

1998: Victim 6 showers with Sandusky. The victim's mother becomes suspicious and calls University Police, who open an investigation.

May 13, 1998: Detective Ralph Ralston and Detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdrop on a meeting between Sandusky and the victim's mother at her home.

May 19, 1998: Dets. Ralston and Schreffler eavesdrop on a second meeting. At some point during these meetings, Ralston and Schreffler hear Sandusky admit to touching Victim 6 inappropriately. Sandusky reportedly ends the second conversation by saying, "I wish I were dead."

That's an interesting point (GJ presentment is a one-sided tool). To re-quote something from the GJ presentment (I'm sort of surprised I missed this in my first read):

To me, this is not obfuscating or vague - it is very clear that McQueary (who testified to seeing Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy) reported to Paterno what he saw (that rape). And Paterno testified that in his discussion with Curley, McQueary told him it was "something sexual in nature, genital fondling", clearly distorting McQueary's report.

I'm thinking now that the State level case against Paterno is perjury, if something should come up against him.

We don't know that this is true. But if this is found to be true, Paterno should join his cronies in prison.

We'll see about making a criminal case against JoePa but a civil case against JoePa for lot's of dough seems to be highly likely and of course against a lot of others including Penn State itself. Wow that's megabucks.

bills - read my post above. This isn't really a smoking gun, it's just plainly obvious in the text of the GJ presentment. Not sure that it's a debatable point anymore.

(And to Shemp's point - the GJ presentment isn't a reporting of all the facts they know of, it's a tool being used by the AG's office knowing it will go public.)

Penn State fans, students and alums are clearly not even close to grasping what this thing is going to do to their degree value. If they continue to espouse this nonsense of support for Paterno and Co., and I've got no doubt that Saturday is going to be a complete embarrassment for them as they attempt a show of solidarity for the old coot, they are going to make it hard for anyone looking at their degree to not think of child rape first, ignorant groupthink second, and whatever values are in the degree third. Recruits and future students are going to flee that **** like beubonic plague.

Yeah it's worth emphasizing what Shemp is saying. The GJ report is not testimony. It is a summary of testimony prepared by a dozen or so idiots. Factual findings in court almost always contain mistakes or inconsistencies from the evidence actually presented in court. The findings of a grand jury are probably more susceptible to this, and they are certainly more biased than usual due to the fact that a GJ is essentially a one-sided show.

Bottom line: the GJ report is probably solid with the broad brush strokes and the facts that are corroborated by multiple people. But on the nitty details, it's not that reliable. Without seeing the actual testimony of McQueary and others, it's impossible to say at this point what exactly happened in the 2002 conversations.

I agree with everything but one thing.

Above I posted this: "he reported what he had seen"-- in my exchange with bronx, which to me answers the details question.

But it is obfuscatory in the sense that it soft pedals the best it can the difference in testimony between McQueary and Paterno. Note that McQ didn't tell Curley and Schultz simply what he'd seen, but specifically it reads "anal sex."

In reading some of the legal analysis, "failure to report" is a difficult charge even against Curley/Schultz. Seems like it would be difficult to nail Paterno on anything on the state level, maybe perjury who knows.

I'm personally more interested to see if anything comes out of the Federal investigation (Dept. of Education looking into Clery Act violation).

Don't agree as a general rule. Kinda related is that the AG did not release the statement of charges and the reasoning behind them--i.e., "Gary Schultz is charged with perjury for doing x, y, and z." Seems notable because if they had then you get to see whether two people did effectively the same thing according to the grand jury report but were treated differently at charging.

Ah, ok - so I'm probably reading too much into the "reported what he saw."

Thanks for the clarification.

Could be but doubtful I would think.

What a scandal !

Hm - think I know where you're coming from. Meaning that the AG's office might look to protect Paterno if it somehow helped further/help their case against Curley/Schultz/others?

I more meant that the AG office isn't part of the State College/deify Paterno mindset.

You can't be serious. Do you not understand that no matter what comes out about anyone's inaction in this, none of that leads to an un-rape of young boys. People are coming forward, Victims will be testifying.

There is no noise that will be music to Sandusky's lawyers' ears from here on in. That Sandusky raped young boys will be the least debatable point in this whole matter when all is said and done.