### Quick thoughts on Ganim's article
http://web.archive.org/web/20170909...ate-paterno-sandusky-police-report/index.html
Ganim's article is pretty sloppy - lots of implications without solid basis & a handful of errors.
- The report was written days after Sandusky's arrest in 2011, soon after the 2001 allegation first came to the attention of police.
- Sloppy. This sentence makes no sense based on what we know of the timeline. The 2001 allegation came to attention of Sandusky investigators in 2010.
- Freeh's report, which Penn State commissioned for $6.5 million, is no longer available at the university's website, a Penn State spokeswoman confirmed.
- Kinda sloppy. PSU still has the Freeh Report on their website... did she really ask a PSU spokeswoman... if she did, did that spokeswoman simply confirm her link was dead. FYI - the report is still on the PSU website at a new link: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
- Each time, McQueary recounted how he had witnessed Sandusky engaging in a sexual act with a prepubescent boy late one night in 2001 in a locker room, where McQueary had gone to retrieve some shoes.
- Sloppy detail. There's never been an indication McQueary was retrieving shoes. He was taking new shoes to drop them off, but only because he went to the Lasch building to get recruiting tapes.
- Leaves out preceding words in Paterno's quote... "I wish I had done more".
- Interestingly, Ganim doesn't mention her 1971 article. She passingly mentions two reports from the 70's but her link only details the 1976 allegation and the 1987 allegation that Joe Sara was a witness to an incident.
### Was 11/2011 the first time McQueary related that Paterno said these things?
I don't know. Ganim implies the 11/2011 police is a follow-up. But the 11/2010 police report that Ray published makes no mention of the details of their conversation.
Would police leave out those details in the 11/2010 report? I don't know. What I do know is there is testimony that the police first interviewed McQueary for at least an hour. The police report narrative spans barely more than one page. The only mention at all of Paterno is in two sentences, relating that McQueary met with Paterno the next day and "advised him of the incident", and that Paterno referred him to "Penn State officials". The next three sentences mention McQueary meeting with those officials. There are zero details offered about what McQueary specifically said to any of them.
### On the Dottie --> Sue --> Joe --> McQueary statement
From the article:
The police report also notes, again according to McQueary, that Paterno told the young assistant that his wife, Sue Paterno, once had told the head coach that Sandusky's wife, Dottie Sandusky, "told her Jerry doesn't like girls."
The Paterno's & Dottie have all denied this.
But the context of Ganim's article, and the denials, are based on this being related to something sexual. What if it wasn't? I wonder if the context of what Dottie said to Sue (however long ago that was) was more related to:
- that they adopted boys first & maybe Dottie had to argue with Jerry to adopt one daughter, and/or
- when TSM was founded, and in its early years, it focused solely on boys rather than girls
And... how Sue related that to Joe, how he interpreted it, and then how he relayed that to McQueary in 2001 in the context of what McQueary had just told Paterno ... all with the passage of time.
The Dottie/Sue and Sue/Joe conversations could easily have been in the 70's. Then Joe relates something about it to Mcqueary in 2001. Then McQueary recounts it a decade later with police.
### Would Paterno mention a second incident
It is perfectly believable to me that Joe would mention a similar incident to McQ in 2001.
We know from Curley's testimony at the Spanier trial that he mentioned something about 1998 to Paterno, at least once after he first learned of it, and at least once after the investigation was closed.
If you recall, Schultz took a "nanosecond" to think of 1998 when first hearing about 2001. Sandusky, boy, bear-hug or arms around boy - that's pretty much the same in 1998 & 2001.
You could interpret this one way & say, well, Paterno had no problem mentioning a prior incident to McQueary. That doesn't sound like a cover-up artist.
### Jay Paterno
This all reminded me of Jay Paterno's book. He carefully parsed some words in Chapter 1:
These are the facts. Joe Paterno was made aware that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with a young boy the day after a witness saw it. What that witness told him is subject to interpretation, but we do know that the witness never told him that he had seen a boy being raped. It was the first and only time Joe Paterno had ever been told by a witness that Jerry had been in the showers with a young boy.
Emphasis on fact that McQ incident was first time he was told "
by a witness". This does not contradict Paterno hearing about 1998 from Curley.
### My biggest question is who gave her the report? Why now?
My biggest question on it is who gave her the police report. And when did they give it, why did they give it, and why did she wait until Saturday to publish an article about it.
But then Ganim also said the leak of this police report is no accident?
That McQueary's statement to police is only now coming to light is no accident.
McQueary, who is now writing a memoir about the Sandusky drama...
It seems like she is strongly implying she got the police report from McQueary. But I don't think that's necessarily true. She doesn't actually say she got it from him. Would McQueary think this would help promote his book? How soon is his book coming out? I don't think McQueary has said anything at all about the scandal, outside a courtroom, since a handful of "no comment" responses in November 2011.
