Joe really drove home the sexual nature of his testimony so much so that the follow up question referred to what Joe had been told as INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT. Yea, Joe really sold the sexual nature....
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Mr. Paterno: In the shower.
Q: Where was the shower?
Yep, no doubt - who on earth refers to the Criminal Sexual Assault of a 10 year old by a sixty-something year old man that involves a severe sex act, let alone anal-rape, as "Inappropriate Conduct"?
Beyond that, the answer JVP provided was in regards to a request by the OAG SWIGJ prosecutor's (the only party who gets to ask questions - i.e., no cross-examination if things are left ambiguous) to clarify his ORIGINAL answer as to what MM had told him he had "SEEN" (i.e., not what MM might have OBTUSELY SPECULATED about OR READ-INTO what he had SEEN.
Here was the ORIGINAL question:
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
JVP answered the question initial portion of the question quite specifically, but it sounds like Eshbach cuts him off prior to JVP providing a complete answer (JVP was asked what MM told him he saw AND WHERE). Eshbach cuts him off after he gives a specific answer to what MM told him he saw, before he answers the "where" part, and immediately INJECTS a THIRD QUESTION to the ORIGINAL QUESTION ("
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?) and going off on this tangent BEFORE coming back to clarify the ORIGINAL answer to the specific question asked - and then, finally point out that JVP had never answered the "where" portion of the ORIGINAL Eshbach question because Eshbach had cut him off to add a 3rd imbedded question to the ORIGINAL one - i.e., "who" did MM report seeing - such that the new question was: 1) What did MM report seeing?, 2) Where did he report seeing it [which Eshbach made 3 by interjection into JVP's first answer before it was complete], and 3) Who did MM report seeing doing whatever he reported seeing [which became answer 2 via Eshbach's obtuse questioning and cutting JVP off before a complete answer to the original question was given and INJECTING an addition "question" into the Original question that already two-parts to it, but Eshbach added a third part before a complete answer could even be given to the original.
So relative to the questions asked and despite the convoluted style in which they were asked, the answer to the three original questions was:
- Q: What did MM report seeing?
- Clear Answer: "...a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy."
- Q: [new question injected by Eshbach before JVP could complete original Q]: Did he identify who that older person was?
- Clear Answer: "Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time."
- Then Eshbach goes off into a fairly long tangent of clarifying what JVP meant by the latter portion of his answer that JS was a former coach, but not working for PSU at time of incident.
- Then Eshbach goes into the tangent of attempting to clarify his original answer to the first question asked (What did MM report to you he had "seen"?), which clarified nothing and only made his Original answer more "grey" because it is unclear as to whether JVP is talking about only specifically what MM reported SEEING or whether he is also including perceptions he had of what MM may have loosely alluded to relative to his "concerns" regarding the circumstances of what he experienced.
- Then Eshbach comes back to the 2nd part of the "Original Q" she had asked JVP but had cut him off prior to a full answer to inject a 3rd part to the Original question....:
- Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Mr. Paterno: In the shower.
Q: Where was the shower?
Mr. Paterno: In the Lasch Building.
Q: Is that on the campus of Penn State University?
So the MOST SPECIFIC ANSWER that JVP gave to the ACTUAL QUESTION asked by Eshbach ("Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen?) was:
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.
"Fondling" implies some form of contact in the shower, but in no way implies the witnessing of a specific sex act or "Criminal Sexual Assault", especially when the receiver of the witness' report as to what he had "seen" uses the word as follows, "...fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be...".
JVP is clearly indicating that Mike REPORTED SEEING some type of "contact with the hands" by JS in the shower, while attempting to limit his answer only to the very specific question originally asked: "What did MM had report SEEING?" and nothing else. This matches PERFECTLY with MM's consistent testimony (including to the "30th SWIGJ") that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" what The State is claiming AND never told anyone he had. And that he has only ever CONJECTURED about what he "thought" was going on based on the "noises" he heard upon entering Lasch and the "positioning" he saw in the shower during his two momentary glances into the shower (despite testifying that he NO LONGER was hearing the noises he had heard earlier at the time of the momentary glances - nor did he see anything beyond the "positioning" and that JS appeared to be making contact with his arms and hands to the upper-body of the boy who was a good foot and one-half to two feet shorter than JS.
MM also testified that he NEVER reported seeing a Sex Act or Criminal Sexual Assault to JVP.
It is quite clear that MM did not absolutely know what was going on based on what he had seen and heard prior to what he only momentarily saw (and specifically has testified that he was NOT hearing those noises anymore at the time of the momentary glances) - he knew the body positioning, he knew that JS's hands were making intentional contact to the upper body of the boy (an almost identical scenario to what was reported in 1998 and determined to be "horseplay" by The State Authority and Regulator on the matter, DPW), but.....MM clearly never reported seeing a severe sex act of any kind, let alone "seeing" and "eyewitnessing" the "anal-rape" The State claimed he would testify to having SEEN and told John McQueary and Dr. Dranov he saw, while the incident was still in-progress - his father supposedly twice while the incident was in-progress! Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov all have said multiple times AT-TRIAL that THESE CLAIMS BY THE STATE IN THEIR INDICTMENTS and the Presentment that produced them (and was cited as Probable Cause on the Indictments) is utter bull$hit and does not match what they told the Grand Jury!!!
