Penn State horror story

[G&T]

It's pretty clear that McQueary was giving a narrative of what he saw and did. If he intervened, why would he say he left?

 

Also, the Grand Jury is allowed to ask questions of witnesses, and I think anyone hearing this testimony would be very curious as to why McQueary didn't immediately contact the police. Maybe they just didn't ask..

 

But what we all read wasn't a transcript of testimony, so we have no clue what he said or what he was asked. But we will find out more in about 30 minutes.

[Soxbadger]

This is what I was trying to say when I was getting shouted down last week.

 

A Grand Jury is not close to a trial. McQuery does not get to explain the answers, the Prosecutor gets to ask questions and the person has to answer them.

 

IE (McQueary as witness)

 

On XYZ date did you see Sandusky inappropriately touch a child?

 

A) Yes

 

Did you call the police?

 

A) No

 

Did you tell your father?

 

A) Yes

 

Did you tell Paterno?

 

A) Yes

 

And you told him specific facts, correct?

 

A) Yes

 

Did you tell the President?

 

A) Yes

 

And you told him specific facts, correct?

 

A) Yes

 

No further questions.

 

Notice how McQueary has no ability to explain himself, he simply has to answer the questions as I ask them. He gets no opportunity to explain. Based on that, I can then write a Complaint:

 

"Grand Jury found that McQueary witnessed Sandusky committing a crime. He then reported the specifics of the crime to Joe Paterno. He also reported the specifics of the crime to the President. The President in violation of Penn law failed to report this incident."

 

Thats why the report is so unreliable. I never said anything patently false, but I also didnt tell the world that I only based my complaint on the evidence I cared to introduce into the record.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

But what we all read wasn't a transcript of testimony, so we have no clue what he said or what he was asked. But we will find out more in about 30 minutes.

And they wont release it because of the ongoing investigation. Obviously as more details come out its only going to make this all worse and not better.

[G&T]

This CBS news "exclusive" is a nothing.

[G&T]

And they wont release it because of the ongoing investigation. Obviously as more details come out its only going to make this all worse and not better.

 

Pretty sure you will never see it because GJ testimony is completely confidential unless contradicted at trial.

[RockRaines]

Pretty sure you will never see it because GJ testimony is completely confidential unless contradicted at trial.

I read in the paper that they could get access to it because it could be considered a public record, is that not true?

[Soxbadger]

http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/grandjuries/pg1.html

 

It appears that access can vary by state (I dont know if that website is legitimate, but it reads legitimate)

 

 

[G&T]

I read in the paper that they could get access to it because it could be considered a public record, is that not true?

 

Well I suppose it could be different in PA, but in NY it is not a public record. Judges and counsel will see it so they can ensure against abuse, but unless it is leaked by the judge or a party no one will see it.

[Steve9347]

This CBS news "exclusive" is a nothing.

Yeah. That was horses***.

 

Note, not horseplay.

[G&T]

Took a look at PA quickly and it looks like it is secret unless there is a petition for release of the GJ records which will only be granted for "extraordinary circumstances." Good luck there.

[RockRaines]

Took a look at PA quickly and it looks like it is secret unless there is a petition for release of the GJ records which will only be granted for "extraordinary circumstances." Good luck there.

I'm sure the details will come out regardless once people start rolling over on Sandusky.

[G&T]

I'm sure the details will come out regardless once people start rolling over on Sandusky.

 

Nothing stops witnesses from talking.

[RockRaines]

Nothing stops witnesses from talking.

Exactly. I am also sure every other record involving these people will be petitioned under the FOIA. We will know every detail of compensation etc that has anything to do with Sandusky and PSU.

[Balta1701]

Nothing stops witnesses from talking.

Lawyers will push hard to make sure that doesn't happen before trial to protect their cases. Note I said try.

[Soxbadger]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...ult-source-says

 

New rumor, Mcqueary did speak with the police. This is why we dont rush to judgment based on hearsay evidence in a grand jury indictment.

 

[Balta1701]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...ult-source-says

 

New rumor, Mcqueary did speak with the police. This is why we dont rush to judgment based on hearsay evidence in a grand jury indictment.

No matter what, he should not have been on the field coaching last weekend. If his actions vindicate him in the long term fine, but you can't have him out there until the full story is out.

[Soxbadger]

As Ive said consistently from the beginning, the appropriate response is to suspend (with or without pay) pending the investigation or to let them coach during the investigation. Neither McQueary or Paterno were being accused of a crime (or criminal actions) so really there was very little need for swift action.

 

Unfortunately 40 pages or so of this thread was how absolutely awful of an idea that was and that everyone should be fired immediately.

 

 

[RockRaines]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...ult-source-says

 

New rumor, Mcqueary did speak with the police. This is why we dont rush to judgment based on hearsay evidence in a grand jury indictment.

So you are judging people's judgement on heresay? "A Source familiar". Sounds like you are breaking your own rule there.

 

As Ive said consistently from the beginning, the appropriate response is to suspend (with or without pay) pending the investigation or to let them coach during the investigation. Neither McQueary or Paterno were being accused of a crime (or criminal actions) so really there was very little need for swift action.

 

Unfortunately 40 pages or so of this thread was how absolutely awful of an idea that was and that everyone should be fired immediately.

 

Nothing is going to make firing them immediately a bad decision. They were all aware of his actions, and the funny thing is now you are actually trying to prove that they were so aware that they went to the cops. And still McQ had Sandusky making recruiting visits for him.

Edited November 16, 2011 by RockRaines

[Soxbadger]

Breaking my own rule?

 

Im saying that we should wait for the real evidence to come out.

 

That is why I called it a "rumor" and didnt pretend it was fact. So Im adhering to my stance, you wait for the real evidence to come out. It may be a year, it may be 2, but eventually we will have all the evidence we care to sort through. And then after weve had a chance to review the evidence and come to our own conclusions based on our own independent interpretation of the evidence, will I make a judgment.

 

I dont think Ive varied from that.

 

Nothing is going to make firing them immediately a bad decision. They were all aware of his actions, and the funny thing is now you are actually trying to prove that they were so aware that they went to the cops. And still McQ had Sandusky making recruiting visits for him.

 

Thats your opinion. Id rather wait for the facts before I decide what happened.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Just a coincidence, right?

Joe Paterno transferred full ownership of his house to his wife, Sue, for $1 in July, less than four months before a sexual abuse scandal engulfed his Penn State football program and the university.

 

Documents filed in Centre County, Pa., show that on July 21, Paterno’s house near campus was turned over to “Suzanne P. Paterno, trustee” for a dollar plus “love and affection.” The couple had previously held joint ownership of the house, which they bought in 1969 for $58,000.

 

According to documents filed with the county, the house’s fair-market value was listed at $594,484.40. Wick Sollers, a lawyer for Paterno, said in an e-mail that the Paternos had been engaged in a “multiyear estate planning program,” and the transfer “was simply one element of that plan.” He said it had nothing to do with the scandal.

 

Paterno, who was fired as the football coach at the university last week, has been judged harshly by many for failing to take more aggressive action when he learned of a suspected sexual assault of a child by one of his former top assistants.

 

Some legal experts, in trying to gauge the legal exposure of the university and its top officials to lawsuits brought by suspected victims of the assistant, Jerry Sandusky, have theorized that Paterno could be a target of civil actions. On Nov. 5, Sandusky, Penn State’s former defensive coordinator, was charged with 40 counts related to the reported sexual abuse of eight boys over 15 years. Paterno, 84, was among those called to give testimony before a grand jury during the investigation, which began in 2009.

 

Experts in estate planning and tax law, in interviews, cautioned that it would be hard to determine the Paternos’ motivation simply from the available documents. It appears the family house had been the subject of years of complex and confusing transactions.

 

Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

 

“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”

 

Two lawyers examined the available documents in recent days. Neither wanted to be identified because they were not directly involved in the case or the property transaction. One of the experts said it appeared to be an explicit effort to financially shield Joe Paterno. The other regarded the July transaction, at least on its face, as benign.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Once the grand jury started, I think Paterno knew there were rough waters ahead. So, OBVIOUSLY he knew something was up and he might be responsible.

 

Since it was a jointly owned house, there would be no estate tax reasons to do this if he died, correct?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Athomeboy_2000

[Soxfest]

Just a coincidence, right?

Joe Pa knew he had to protect his assets from a civil suit.......................House of cards is about to fall.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Soxfest

[Milkman delivers]

Maybe it's just to make the transition easier for his wife when the inevitable happens? I mean, the guy's 84.

[G&T]

Once the grand jury started, I think Paterno knew there were rough waters ahead. So, OBVIOUSLY he knew something was up and he might be responsible.

 

Since it was a jointly owned house, there would be no estate tax reasons to do this if he died, correct?

 

I think his interest would have been taxable actually. But there are exclusions that might have applied. Who knows? But this raises other issues of sale for less than fair market value (income tax), and what happens if the wife dies first? Now the entire property is taxable rather than 1/2. (edit: this transfer was made in trust with wife as trustee so the last sentence doesn't apply).

 

I'm sure this happens on occassion based on the health of the parties, and I'm sure Joe will die first, but it is worthy of raising eyebrows.

 

The kicker here is that, if I recall how tort claims work, once the claims against him were made, his 1/2 interest in the property would have been reached by the claimant even after his death. So his wife would have been liable to the extent of the 1/2 interest. By transferring it before the claims were made, it is now the individual asset of the wife and can't be reached.

Edited November 16, 2011 by G&T

[Steve9347]

Maybe it's just to make the transition easier for his wife when the inevitable happens? I mean, the guy's 84.

Yeah, that was my take. People do these kinds of things at the tail end of their lives.