Do you not understand what the word "other" means?
This is from JVP's grand jury testimony:
Q: I’d like to direct your attention to what I believe would be a spring break of 2002, around that time. Do you recall Michael McQueary calling you and asking to have a discussion with you about something that he observed?
Mr. Paterno: I’m not sure of the date, but he did call me on a Saturday morning. He said he had something that he wanted to discuss. I said, come on over to the house.
He came over to the house.
And as I said, I’m not sure what year it was, but I know it was a Saturday morning and we discussed something he had seen.
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
The most important thing we learn from this is that even Joe questioned the OAG's assertion about the date. 2002 was most certainly used so they could fit the FTR charge under the ten year statute of limitations. This was done with malice and is far worse than what we now know any of those charged did relative to Sandusky. Add that to the "anal intercourse" fabrication and Noonan's incredibly inappropriate remarks at the PC and even you should be able to see that the fix was in.
To your point, Joe first said he was told of fondling. Then he backed off, saying it was "some kind of inappropriate action". Mike was specifically asked if he had seen fondling and he testified that he had not.
You're asking an 85 year old man in failing health to recall a 10 minute conversation a decade ago. I'm sure he was apprehensive. But if Mike didn't see fondling, why would he tell Joe he had? Was Joe coached by Scott or Mike? Regardless, Joe clarified his comments when he had the chance. You just don't want to accept it.
Also, Joe's "sexual nature" comment is completely contradicted by the notes and emails from 2001. As these written communications are the only hard evidence from that time, I put far more credence in them than I do the testimony of anyone, especially Mike McQueary.
And it shouldn't be overlooked that Alan Myers was having the time of his life. In his own words, he was sliding back and forth along the shower floor and snapping towels with the man he thought of as his father. Whatever physical contact there was may have been initiated by him. In the context of "horseplay", Jerry wrapping his arms around the boy's waist from behind makes sense. You obviously wouldn't want them facing each other. And since Jerry was so much taller, the mere act of bending over to hug him that way would push his pelvis away from the boy. Try it. Stand behind a chair and then bend over and wrap your arms around the back of it. It's wrong to just assume any of that was sexual. And isn't it funny that V2 is the only victim you're allowed to question?
The larger reality is if any of these people thought they had something to hide, they would have had their stories straight. There would have been evidence of conspiracy and all the other horrible things with which they were accused. What Mike told them was clearly inappropriate behavior and it was a huge liability risk for JS and a boy to be alone in that situation. It's perfectly understandable that PSU officials would want to prevent that situation from occurring in the future. But that's all the evidence from that time suggests. If they thought CSA had occurred, their actions would have reflected it. This was a witch hunt.
