John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Evidently you can't read very well, I never said that. I first and foremost said his testimony is completely unreliable. I then said that if you ignore all that, which you shouldn't, he could have been trying to help put a monster behind bars.... In no way is adding some adjectives, qualified multiple times, lying under oath. The first part is important, so you'll continue to focus on the second part.

When did you realize Sandusky was a monster? Was when the jury read the verdict, or did you come to the realization sometime earlier?

Well, MM stated that the touching or contact he described to Joe, which Joe struggled to describe saying, "I don't know what you would call it"...."I don't know what it was", but using the term "fondling" as his best description (e.g., inappropriate touching), was contact by Sandusky with his hands to the child's upper body with his hands and arms - there is nothing inconsistent about JVP's description as we know the "inappropriate contact" that MM described seeing was not a "sexual act" by MM's very own sworn testimony multiple times (in addition, MM not only said that he didn't see a sexual act, but that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD - "anyone" would include JVP).

It is also quite clear from MM's sworn testimony that JVP was referring to what he believed MM thought Sandusky's motivations were when he said that MM felt the incident was of a "sexual nature". Speculating on Sandusky's motivation for being in the shower with the boy is not a description of "inappropriate sexual activity".

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

He was interviewed by detectives right before he testified. Could the phrase "sexual nature" have been said by one of the detectives, and it stuck in Joe's mind? I'm not saying it was anything sinister done by the detectives.
My father in law was in his mid-80s, had surgeries during that time, as did Joe, and was not the same guy, mentally, afterward. He would be told something, then repeat it a few times, after that.

This is exactly what happened. They were putting it out there suggestively and Joe didn't even realize they were doing it.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Is your father Head Coach of a major football program? Does he face media questioning every week? Has he had experience in public speaking for 60 years? You shouldn't sterotype the elderly. Every person is different.

Joe seemed quite capable of running the PSU program. I suspect he could answer a few Grand Jury questions honestly. So far his family hasn't produced any medical or psychological reports that suggested he had lost his memory, suffered from dementia, or was otherwise confused when he testified. You can fantasize about it all you want, but his sworn testimony is on record and there is no medical proof to suggest it should not be considered credible.

He was 85 years old. How hard is it for you to comprehend that a man of that age is not going to be as sharp under severe questioning as a spry 20 year old. Had Joe lived longer I am quite confident Wick Sollers would have found a way to call into question the testimony and interview Joe gave to Sassano

 

[Black Elmo 2]

SEVERE questioning? I didn't see anything severe about it. He was asked what happened and he told them. Its not like he was being cross-examined with a bright light blinding him. Let's get real. The guy answered honestly. He was told of something sexually inappropriate with a young boy. Why can't you just accept it? You're never going to change his testimony. Its permanent.
Its not going away.

 

[gslachta]

None of this should be surprising. If I was them, I wouldn't want to be deposed either. Nothing in it for them and has nothing to do with Paterno vs. NCAA.

Disagree. Tangentially his deposition has led to further destruction of Paterno's name and his complaint was public. Actually I'd probably sue him directly on grounds that he slandered the Paterno name. He hasn't been vetted in court. I would do this just to depose him to establish the veracity of his claim against Paterno(the call). It should not be anonymous. He is not a child. If you are going after money at this late date well, truth is not his motivation. Have him give the money to support child abuse. He's 60 not 16. I'd ask for a psychiatric evaluation to see how difficult it would be for him to be deposed. Don't trust him or the attorneys when money is involved, 44 years have passed and there is an ATM machine in Old Main, but that's just me.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

SEVERE questioning? I didn't see anything severe about it. He was asked what happened and he told them. Its not like he was being cross-examined with a bright light blinding him. Let's get real. The guy answered honestly. He was told of something sexually inappropriate with a young boy. Why can't you just accept it? You're never going to change his testimony. Its permanent.
Its not going away.

You didn't see? So you were there when it happened?

 

[canuckhal]

Disagree. Tangentially his deposition has led to further destruction of Paterno's name and his complaint was public. Actually I'd probably sue him directly on grounds that he slandered the Paterno name. He hasn't been vetted in court. I would do this just to depose him to establish the veracity of his claim against Paterno(the call). It should not be anonymous. He is not a child. If you are going after money at this late date well, truth is not his motivation. Have him give the money to support child abuse. He's 60 not 16. I'd ask for a psychiatric evaluation to see how difficult it would be for him to be deposed. Don't trust him or the attorneys when money is involved, 44 years have passed and there is an ATM machine in Old Main, but that's just me.

I get what you are saying, but the lawsuit is against the NCAA, not this dude. The only possible relevance is that the NCAA says look Freeh was right, and thus we were right in our actions. However, it appears that the deposition occurred after the NCAA took action, rendering his deposition moot. His deposition adds nothing in this lawsuit, but is relevant in the PSU vs insurance company one. If Paterno's wish to file another lawsuit, that will be up to them. If people want to shed light on the settlement process, this deposition might be a prime example. Regardless, we will see how this all plays out.

 

[Nellie R]

JVP testified under oath. The Court takes his testimony at face value. So should we. If it was in error he had plenty of time to correct it before he passed away. He didn't. He continually maintained he was told by MM of inappropriate SEXUAL activity. Joe fathered several children. He coached college boys for dozens of years. I think he heard about sex before, and knew what the word sexual meant. So please quit trying to explain it away.

The Court ????? He testified at a GJ, and you're not altogether dumb (because I noticed in another thread you know the difference between present tense "plead" and past tense "pled") so don't pretend you don't know the difference between testifying at a GJ and in a courtroom at an actual trial. The correct assessment of that testimony is in its entire context. It was obvious he had no idea what terms to use and was qualified with many "I don't know what you call its".

The GJ testimony was read into the record by THE PROSECUTION at trial, therefore was not likely to be a true representation of what happened in the GJ. Not to mention the GJ that approved the PROSECUTOR's presentment for indictment purposes only, was not the GJ that actually heard the testimony.

Nevertheless, it was clear the JURY understood that JVP's testimony was not of much importance and not AS important as comparing Dr. Dranov's to MMQ's , which they requested during deliberation to have read back to them.

He did NOT have plenty of time to "correct" it at trial under cross-examination by the defense because he was DECEASED. He did not have plenty of time to "correct" it in the interim because he was undergoing chemo and dying from cancer, fighting for his life.

It is only the MEDIA, general ignorami including rival team sports fan trollers, purposeful agitators like you GTACSA and others that PRETEND to be child advocates who continue to put any emphasis at all on the non-important JVP GJ testimony.

The GJ, I repeat, has as much relevance as how you prefer to build your own ham sandwich. What matters is what happens in an actual trial.

 

[Nellie R]

Who the hell uses the word fondling for describing the touching of someone's shoulders or for holding hands??

A pre-GJ interview team that includes the prosecutor, who interestingly enough, was in the room for JVP, but not for Curley or Schultz. This lends credence to the theory that they knew they could plant words in an elder's mind to be repeated in the GJ room to get the effect they wanted on the GJ jurors which was to return an indictment.

 

[EPC FAN]

Is your father Head Coach of a major football program? Does he face media questioning every week? Has he had experience in public speaking for 60 years? You shouldn't sterotype the elderly. Every person is different.

Joe seemed quite capable of running the PSU program. I suspect he could answer a few Grand Jury questions honestly. So far his family hasn't produced any medical or psychological reports that suggested he had lost his memory, suffered from dementia, or was otherwise confused when he testified. You can fantasize about it all you want, but his sworn testimony is on record and there is no medical proof to suggest it should not be considered credible.

Bullshit. I was one of the fans who wanted him to retire years earlier. I took lots of shots here because of it. His performances at his press conferences the last several years put doubt to his lucidity. He forgot names of his own players, for example.
The words he said, he said. It is how he said it that I wonder about. I saw him over his whole career. He would invariably answer a question with a question. Put the tape out there for all to hear.

 

[step.eng69]

this was posted by Jay Paterno

 

[Black Elmo 2]

The Court ????? He testified at a GJ, and you're not altogether dumb (because I noticed in another thread you know the difference between present tense "plead" and past tense "pled") so don't pretend you don't know the difference between testifying at a GJ and in a courtroom at an actual trial. The correct assessment of that testimony is in its entire context. It was obvious he had no idea what terms to use and was qualified with many "I don't know what you call its".

The GJ testimony was read into the record by THE PROSECUTION at trial, therefore was not likely to be a true representation of what happened in the GJ. Not to mention the GJ that approved the PROSECUTOR's presentment for indictment purposes only, was not the GJ that actually heard the testimony.

Nevertheless, it was clear the JURY understood that JVP's testimony was not of much importance and not AS important as comparing Dr. Dranov's to MMQ's , which they requested during deliberation to have read back to them.

He did NOT have plenty of time to "correct" it at trial under cross-examination by the defense because he was DECEASED. He did not have plenty of time to "correct" it in the interim because he was undergoing chemo and dying from cancer, fighting for his life.

It is only the MEDIA, general ignorami including rival team sports fan trollers, purposeful agitators like you GTACSA and others that PRETEND to be child advocates who continue to put any emphasis at all on the non-important JVP GJ testimony.

The GJ, I repeat, has as much relevance as how you prefer to build your own ham sandwich. What matters is what happens in an actual trial.

Uh, Grand Juries are convened in Courtrooms before a presiding Judge. Every "Court" proceeding is not a trial. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

And JVP could have corrected his testimony at any time. It didn't have to be in a formal Court proceeding.

Look, he testified before Almighty God and its on record. Accept it. He was told of inappropriate sexual behavior. He said it several times. He was quite clear. There is no medical evidence that he was suffering from any memory or mental disorder. He was a credible witness and deserves to be believed. I wish people would quit disparaging him as some dottering old fool that couldn't remember how to tie his shoes.
He was quite capable, active, and responsible.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Uh, Grand Juries are convened in Courtrooms before a presiding Judge. Every "Court" proceeding is not a trial. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

And JVP could have corrected his testimony at any time. It didn't have to be in a formal Court proceeding.

Look, he testified before Almighty God and its on record. Accept it. He was told of inappropriate sexual behavior. He said it several times. He was quite clear. There is no medical evidence that he was suffering from any memory or mental disorder. He was a credible witness and deserves to be believed. I wish people would quit disparaging him as some dottering old fool that couldn't remember how to tie his shoes.
He was quite capable, active, and responsible.

WTF is your point? Yes Joe in his own words said he didn't know what to call it. MM also stated he told Joe a watered down story. Joe Paterno isn't on trial and he did the right thing and informed those above him that something may have occurred. This has NOTHING to do with what is going on today...but keep trying.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Well, if you follow the threads on this board, this is all about JVP. In a sense he is on trial. His legacy, his reputation, his image, his lifetime of work, etc. Not to mention that the Paterno's have filed a lawsuit on his behalf. So I respectfully disagree. Peace.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Well, if you follow the threads on this board, this is all about JVP. In a sense he is on trial. His legacy, his reputation, his image, his lifetime of work, etc. Not to mention that the Paterno's have filed a lawsuit on his behalf. So I respectfully disagree. Peace.

BS, Joe is dead and he isn't on trial. I follow the threads and it's the same few who basically are in denial over Jerry saying the same shit daily. Most are wondering how the BoT did what they did and how TSM walked. That has nothing to do with Joe in 2016 IMO. I think your act is becoming a bit tired in this thread.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I agree with most sensible people in here that Joe was not exactly sure what he was dealing with (nor did McQueary seem to for that matter). As such, he did exactly what he should have done by passing it on to the proper people and backing out of it. But whatever the reason Joe used the "sexual in nature" comment it would prove to be correct about Sandusky. He is a convicted pedophile. He did bad things to children.

 

[Nellie R]

Is your father Head Coach of a major football program? Does he face media questioning every week? Has he had experience in public speaking for 60 years? You shouldn't sterotype the elderly. Every person is different.

Uh, Grand Juries are convened in Courtrooms before a presiding Judge. Every "Court" proceeding is not a trial. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

And JVP could have corrected his testimony at any time. It didn't have to be in a formal Court proceeding.

Look, he testified before Almighty God and its on record. Accept it. He was told of inappropriate sexual behavior. He said it several times. He was quite clear. There is no medical evidence that he was suffering from any memory or mental disorder. He was a credible witness and deserves to be believed. I wish people would quit disparaging him as some dottering old fool that couldn't remember how to tie his shoes.
He was quite capable, active, and responsible.

Way to ignore what I actually said about the worth of a GJ. And no-it was NOT quite clear. Only if you cherry-pick and don't use context. The GJ, I repeat, has as much relevance as how you prefer to build your own ham sandwich. What matters is what happens in an actual trial.

If you want medical records for your insane quest, ask the family. I take back the praise for knowing "pled" is the past tense of "plead", because you don't know how to spell "doddering".

 

[Nellie R]

Well, if you follow the threads on this board, this is all about JVP. In a sense he is on trial. His legacy, his reputation, his image, his lifetime of work, etc. Not to mention that the Paterno's have filed a lawsuit on his behalf. So I respectfully disagree. Peace.

Only in answer to people like you who constantly bring up irrelevant information!

 

[Black Elmo 2]

I take back the praise for knowing "pled" is the past tense of "plead", because you don't know how to spell "doddering".

That's only because I am a dottering old man.

 

[getmyjive11]

A pre-GJ interview team that includes the prosecutor, who interestingly enough, was in the room for JVP, but not for Curley or Schultz. This lends credence to the theory that they knew they could plant words in an elder's mind to be repeated in the GJ room to get the effect they wanted on the GJ jurors which was to return an indictment.

You have a transcript of the pre-GJ interview team and what they said to Paterno?

 

[TheGLOV]

What a complete pu$$y and liar

#7. Say's it all to me.

He/they didn't get what they wanted and so they do this.

They'll take the money but cough/cough (where's my walker with the lime green tennis balls) I'm just too weak!

 

[TheGLOV]

""Some of these people are really over the top and some of these people are militant, and some of these people, in my mind, are terrorists," McLaughlin said." ....and you wander why I hate lawyers as much as I do Notre Dame!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[TheGLOV]

"Forcing John Doe 150 to sit through yet another deposition is not only duplicative, unnecessary and unduly burdensome, but it would force this victim of childhood sexual abuse to, again, relive the trauma of his abuse," his lawyers wrote. They said he settled with Penn State in 2013 and has kept his abuse a secret from those closest to him.

Well wouldn't spending the money that he was granted to the same thing to him?

Strange.

Very strange.

I think he should just donate it all to charity and he'd feel much better about himself and his stress related/flashback symptoms would all disappear.

 

[Nellie R]

You have a transcript of the pre-GJ interview team and what they said to Paterno?

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

 

[getmyjive11]

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

Why? It seems that you would know the info.

 

[Nellie R]

Why? It seems that you would know the info.

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

 

[getmyjive11]

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

I'm asking you since you made the comment that Paterno was fed the lines.

 

[Nellie R]

I'm asking you since you made the comment that Paterno was fed the lines.

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

JVP testified under oath. The Court takes his testimony at face value. So should we. If it was in error he had plenty of time to correct it before he passed away. He didn't. He continually maintained he was told by MM of inappropriate SEXUAL activity. Joe fathered several children. He coached college boys for dozens of years. I think he heard about sex before, and knew what the word sexual meant. So please quit trying to explain it away.

Mike saw inappropriate sexual activity and told his dad, a family friend, and a football coach. Maybe Mike doesn't know what SEXUAL activity means? If he did, and he saw it, he CERTAINLY would have told the police, right? That's pretty obvious, isn't it? If he doesn't, it explains a lot.

 

[getmyjive11]

You can ask Joshua Locke if you want this information.

Not sure why you don't want to provide that info. Odd.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Not sure why you don't want to provide that info. Odd.

Nellie R aint giving it up for anyone

 

[getmyjive11]

Nellie R aint giving it up for anyone

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LundyPSU]

Mike saw inappropriate sexual activity and told his dad, a family friend, and a football coach. Maybe Mike doesn't know what SEXUAL activity means? If he did, and he saw it, he CERTAINLY would have told the police, right? That's pretty obvious, isn't it? If he doesn't, it explains a lot.

Maybe Mike doesn't really know what was going on that night

 

[NittPicker]

Who the hell uses the word fondling for describing the touching of someone's shoulders or for holding hands??

In addition to other replies regarding your lack of knowledge regarding the definition of "fondling", you should also consider Joe's background. He had a strong Catholic upbringing and was driven to do well academically. It wasn't a case of him hanging out with a wild crowd in Brooklyn and living a life of debauchery. He was an English Literature major so he was obviously familiar with the language. I'm sure some of that classic English literature contained the word "fondling" and I'd be willing to bet it was never used with a sexual connotation.

After Sandusky hit the fan, I read an interview with Joe in which he talked about his confusion over men having sex. He said he didn't get the concept and didn't know it was even possible. That certainly doesn't mean he's stupid but it does show the upbringing and values shared by many people from his generation. There is a certain amount naivety about sexual matters since sex was considered a personal thing. Nowadays you can log onto the internet and read about any variety of sexual topics. "Fondling" has taken on a sexual connotation today just as "gay" has changed from being joyful to being homosexual.

With all that in mind, I can imagine Joe's confusion after MM came to him regarding Sandusky. MM admitted he gave Joe a watered down version of what he saw. Nobody on this message board knows what exactly MM told Joe but I'll humor you and concede MM may have told Joe that he saw Sandusky "fondling" a boy. At that time Joe wouldn't have made a sexual connection. One, because sexual contact between males was a concept which was totally foreign to him. And two, his idea of "fondling" wasn't the same as the modern definition with sexual overtones. Joe testified he could see MM was upset so he got him in touch with people up the chain. After MM left the office Joe likely was wondering what the hell MM was so upset about.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Maybe Mike doesn't really know what was going on that night

Hammer, nail - nail, hammer.

 

[Obliviax]

Maybe Mike doesn't really know what was going on that night

..and was maybe prodded to "re-remember".

 

[marshall23]

..and was maybe prodded to "re-remember".

Cattle prodded.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Maybe the whole shower thing was just made up from nothing at all.

 

[Misder2]

Maybe the whole shower thing was just made up from nothing at all.

Why? And when?

 

[MoonOverMyHammy]

One, because sexual contact between males was a concept which was totally foreign to him.

I seriously doubt that