tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post4697630686793356145..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: NCAA investigation of Miami destroys credibility and legality of Penn State sanctions.Marc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-91995092652502779832013-02-09T17:16:19.010-08:002013-02-09T17:16:19.010-08:00"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. O..."Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Note that Joe does not express any uncertainty as to the NATURE of the incident,i.e., that it was "sexual"and "inappropriate". Note that Joe says that he KNEW that the action was "inappropriate". You keep saying that Joe repeatedly expressed uncertainty without disclosing that he only expressed uncertainty as to the SPECIFICS, and not the NATURE, of what MM told him. Do you understand the difference between someone remembering the nature but not the specifics of an incident?<br /><br />As for your "absolute irrevocable fact" that MM didn't witness anything "sexual" in nature, you should tell that to the jury which found Jerry guilty of Indecent Assault SOLELY on the basis of MM's testimony. The only "we" who "know" this "fact" are a few Joe die-hards and Jerry. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-81190383039846513072013-02-09T14:46:02.302-08:002013-02-09T14:46:02.302-08:00"He never, NEVER, expressed any uncertainty a..."He never, NEVER, expressed any uncertainty as to the NATURE of what MM told him as described in 3. He did not say, as you claim, that it MAY HAVE BEEN sexual in nature. "<br /><br />Paterno said repeatedly throughout his entire testimony regarding the conversation ten years earlier that he wasnt sure, didnt remember, and said it repeatedly. And we know for am absolute irrevocable fact now that McQueary NEVER DID see anything of a "sexual nature" in the shower so the liklihood that he actually told Paterno that he did ten years earlier when he saw no such thing is virtually zero.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-52891114683513176132013-02-05T12:59:53.515-08:002013-02-05T12:59:53.515-08:00Joe testified as to three things :
1. MM did not ...Joe testified as to three things :<br /><br />1. MM did not give him the SPECIFICS of what he witnessed.<br /><br />2. Joe did not recall the SPECIFICS of what MM told him.<br /><br />3. What Joe did recall of what MM described to him was of "a sexual nature". <br /><br />Joe only expressed uncertainty as to the SPECIFICS described in 1 and 2. He never, NEVER, expressed any uncertainty as to the NATURE of what MM told him as described in 3. He did not say, as you claim, that it MAY HAVE BEEN sexual in nature. He made an UNQUALIFIED declarative statement : "It was a sexual nature". Stop pretending that the head coach of a major college football program was a senile old fool on the witness stand. He wasn't. When he was uncertain, he said so; when he was certain, he said so.<br /> <br />As for your imagined conversation between Joe and MM in 2011, there's really little to say. There's nothing about it in the record. What are the names of these "credible sources"? Where do their statements appear in the record? It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who relies on the existence of a conversation but refuses to disclose the names of people who heard it or even heard OF it from Joe or MM and refuses to disclose where and when it took place. Just saying that some unidentified "credible sources" told you or somebody else something means nothing, NOTHING. <br /><br />By the way, did these "credible sources" make their "statements" directly to you (in which case, you can provide their names) or did you just read about them online (in which case, you have a lot to learn about internet "credibility")?<br /><br />The bottom line is that without this "conversation", you have no way of explaining away the appalling statement "It was a sexual nature". Your needing it to exist doesn't make it exist.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-48435683329812204732013-02-05T10:01:28.203-08:002013-02-05T10:01:28.203-08:00"But Joe testified under oath that MM told hi..."But Joe testified under oath that MM told him that he had witnessed an incident of "a sexual nature". Did Joe commit perjury? What motive did Joe have to commit perjury? "<br /><br />First, you shouldnt throw the word perjury around unless you truly understand the legal definition of the term. Secondly did you actually read Paterno's testimony? I think not. If you did you would have seen that Paterno said numerous times that he "wasnt' sure", didnt quite remember qualifying what he said he thinks McQeary MIGHT have told him, by saying he didnt really quite remember and he said it over and over again.<br /><br />Third, while there is no reason to expect you to have all the information available, there has been statements from credible sources that 85 year old Joe Paterno didnt remember a thing about the conversation with McQueary which took place ten years earlier when he was 75 and, having been called to testify before the grand jury, called McQueary and asked him what McQueary told him. McQueary, according to this credible source told Paterno something vague about maybe seeing something of "a sexual nature" which is why Paterno used those specific words in his testimony but also qualified it by saying repeatedly he wasnt sure, he didnt quite remember, that he might have been told this.<br /><br />And before you jump to conclusions about whether asking McQueary before his testimony was legal or ethical it certainly is and lawyers do it all the time. They call it refreshing a witnesses recollection and its done routinely when a witness says they cant quite remember something.<br /><br />What substantiates this information -- that McQueary told Paterno that he might have told him he saw "something of a sexual nature" before Paterno testified -- is that McQueary had already testified that he believed something sexual was going on,something along the lines of anal sex, something that clearly was not true and McQueary had to have known he saw no such thing but couldnt tell Paterno thats what he told him since he didnt,so he gave Paterno a vague "something of a sexual nature" line which Paterno used so that Paterno's testimony didnt completely contradict his own.<br /><br />Yes, the whole thing is a mess. But before you express skepticism, keep in mind that what Paterno knew and was told could have been cleared up had Freeh interviewed Paterno and McQueary for his report but Freeh refused to interview either one of them in spite of the fact that both repeatedly asked to be interviewed. <br /><br /><br /><br />Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-68952069039253708572013-02-05T09:23:41.401-08:002013-02-05T09:23:41.401-08:00"Based on what he told Dranov it is a virtual..."Based on what he told Dranov it is a virtual certainty he never told Paterno or Curley or Schultz that he saw anything sexual (and we know now he didnt)and if that is the case Curley and Schultz will certainly be acquitted of perjury and failure to report since based on the evidence, there was no such sexual abuse to report."<br /><br />But Joe testified under oath that MM told him that he had witnessed an incident of "a sexual nature". Did Joe commit perjury? What motive did Joe have to commit perjury? You owe Joe an apology.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-64689543311631507922013-02-05T08:07:59.733-08:002013-02-05T08:07:59.733-08:00"This is why mandatory reporting is part of t..."This is why mandatory reporting is part of the law now."<br /><br />At the time McQueary first claimed he thought something unsavory or sexual was going on in the shower with Sandusky, depending on which story he was telling, (a belief that ironically has proved false), he first told his concerns to Dr. Dranov, a McQueary family friend. As a physician Dr. Dranov was a mandatory reporter of child abuse which is why Dranov literally grilled McQueary repeatedly and asked if he, McQueary had seen anything sexual. McQueary told Dranov he didnt. According to Dranov's testimony he asked McQueary three times if he thought there was something, anything sexual going on in that shower with Sandusky and the boy and McQueary emphatically answered "no" every time Dranov asked him.It was because Dranov was a mandatory reporter that he needed to be certain McQueary didnt see or believe anything sexual was going on and ironically, it is only because of McQueary's insistence that he didnt see or believe anything sexual was going on that Dranov suggested he tell Paterno since there was nothing to report to the police.<br /><br />Based on what he told Dranov it is a virtual certainty he never told Paterno or Curley or Schultz that he saw anything sexual (and we know now he didnt)and if that is the case Curley and Schultz will certainly be acquitted of perjury and failure to report since based on the evidence, there was no such sexual abuse to report.<br /><br />If McQueary does not testify to having told them of having seen or witnessed anything sexual, the attention is going to turn to Linda Kelly as AG and whether or not she pressured McQueary into saying something to the grand jury that he never saw.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-11188967952431439582013-02-05T07:50:08.890-08:002013-02-05T07:50:08.890-08:00"Corbett gave millions of dollars in grants t..."Corbett gave millions of dollars in grants to the Sandusky 2nd Mile. Why in the world would you give all that money to an organization that was used as a front for child abuse?"<br /><br />Add to that the fact that MBNA bank during Louis Freeh's tenure as vice chairman was Sandusky's biggest corporate sponsor, something that began AFTER the 1998 investigation as reported here a few months ago<br /><br />(http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/09/bombshell-mbna-bank-while-freeh-was-co.html) <br /><br />and the plot thickens in terms of motive,means and opportunity for the smearing of Paterno with a clearly patently false report and pinning as much on him as possible to protect people in high places. Including Freeh himself.<br /><br />There is more than enough cause for Penn State alumni and other Pennsylvania residents to pressure members of the legislature to appoint a special counsel with subpeona power to investigate what happened including th speed with which the Board of Trustees accepted the NCAA sanctions.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-39567569801943525142013-02-04T22:47:28.418-08:002013-02-04T22:47:28.418-08:00There were 3 investigations 1-1998, 2-2001, 3-2008...There were 3 investigations 1-1998, 2-2001, 3-2008-11. You said that Corbett was the AG in 1998. I mentioned that Corbett was not the AG in 1998 & had nothing to do with "that" 1998 investigation & he didnt. He was actually the AG back in @1996 (appointed) for a short period. Then again during the 2008 investigation. It is well-known that Corbett was the AG in 2008 & the AG prosecuted Sandusky. <br /><br />Here is something you may not have known, or maybe you do - but it is extremely important but rarely gets any publicity. Corbett was in charge of the very long delay in the Sandusky investigation. After he was elected Governor, despite knowing that Sandusky used the 2nd Mile as a grooming place for abusing children, Corbett gave millions of dollars in grants to the Sandusky 2nd Mile. Why in the world would you give all that money to an organization that was used as a front for child abuse? <br /><br /><br />Jim Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-64656351661192938112013-02-04T11:35:04.267-08:002013-02-04T11:35:04.267-08:00I think that's quite a reach given that the e-...I think that's quite a reach given that the e-mails from 2001 in the Freeh report look to be legit and tell the story of what Shultz, Curley and Spanier agreed was the right course of action. I think their agreement on a course of action was based on a very limited set of facts that is clouded by hindsight and they thought they were doing the right thing for all involved at the time. I don't think they were trying to cover anything up or hide anything since they were freely e-mailing about it and anyone even then had to know if you do that it is a record. Heck, Shultz even kept his written records to cover his rear. Why would you keep records of a coverup??? But to think they then did report it after agreeing it didn't need to be is quite a reach. I think Schultz was mixing up '98 and '01 in his testimony and that's more likely. Again, let me say I don't think anything nefarious was going on, nor do I think Joe did anything involving a coverup, but I think people have to be careful about absolving all blame and giving people the benefit of available information at the time versus that available in hindsight. Its not fair to vilify someone when they didn't have enough to put it all together. This is why mandatory reporting is part of the law now. You don't try to do what is best, you get an allegation, you report it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-66803859650588300372013-02-02T06:16:44.503-08:002013-02-02T06:16:44.503-08:00At this point in time, the Commonwealth has yet to...At this point in time, the Commonwealth has yet to prove that Penn State officials didn't report the incident to authorities.<br /><br />The state's case is based on an ASSUMPTION that because there was no investigation of Sandusky in 2001, PSU didn't report it.<br /><br />This is an incorrect assumption. There are plenty of abuse complaints that are not investigated. In fact, Pennsylvania Child Protection laws have provisions for cases that are not investigated which state that complaints that are not investigated are expunged from the records in 120 days.<br /><br />Gary Schultz recalled reporting the 2001 incident to the "child welfare agency." That agency would have been Centre County CYS. CYS investigated the 1998 incident at the outset, before turning it over to DPW. There was no finding of abuse.<br /><br />Everyone has discounted the possibility that CYS got the 2001 complaint and discounted it due to what transpired in 1998 and because of their decades long association with Sandusky.Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-34066330912092783672013-02-01T17:52:13.734-08:002013-02-01T17:52:13.734-08:00A worker at a Taco Bell reports to the manager tha...A worker at a Taco Bell reports to the manager that he saw an ex-employee in the restroom with a child engaging in an act of "a sexual nature". The manager reports it to the franchise owner. Nothing happens. The police don't interview anyone at the Taco Bell. The police don't inspect the restroom. The police are not seen at the Taco Bell at all. Nothing appears in the paper. Why? Because the owner never passed it on to the police. For the next decade, the manager sees the ex-employee with numerous children. The manager does nothing.<br /><br />Are you saying that the manager, like Joe, had no moral responsibilty to the child to follow up with the police? Should we admire the manager for his silence, as you would have us admire Joe? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-70831488497337250812013-02-01T14:09:58.153-08:002013-02-01T14:09:58.153-08:00"I think it would be very interesting to hear..."I think it would be very interesting to hear what Richard Jewell would have to say about this whole thing".<br /><br />Richard Jewell is dead. He died in his early 40's and many people blame the stress he went through because of Freeh as a factor in his early death.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-14963860914825295542013-02-01T13:56:16.001-08:002013-02-01T13:56:16.001-08:00"Here is one more important thing. Let's ..."Here is one more important thing. Let's say MM did say it was sexual in nature and JVP reported it to his superiors. At that point since JS is no longer on the staff--it is not any of JVP concern since he isn't responsible for the man. He did what he was supposed to do."<br /><br />This is what makes the whole affair smell of subtrefuge and something more. Paterno not only did all he or ANYONE was supposed to do, the allegation that caused all the frenzy, that Paterno was told by McQueary that he saw Sandusky having anal sex with a ten year old and did nothing which is what Sean Gregory at Time Magazine reported (or didnt do enough depending on who is pointificating) has already been proved to be a complete falsehood, something that never happened which is why McQueary not only denies having told Paterno any such thing, he couldnt have told him any such thing because he couldnt have witnessed something that we now know never happened. Paterno followed Penn State operating reporting procedure in a case like this and he did more than Tom Corbett who was attorney general at the time and who knew about the allegations back in 2008 and more than the D.A. Ray Vicar who was given the results of the police investigation in 1998 and declined to prosecute. And yet the football coach was supposed to be, what? The lead investigator?<br />This was about one thing -- trading on Paterno's reputation and accomplishment to make money because it was Paterno's name that made it a big story and for journalists who needed it, to try and elevate themselves and enhance their own reputations by becoming part of a mob.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-60159826403870573142013-02-01T13:40:52.687-08:002013-02-01T13:40:52.687-08:00"So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know..."So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know--even you--sorry)????"<br /><br />Thats very much the point isnt it? Except we can take it further and point out that as far as knowing the truth about what exactly Paterno was told we know that the Board of Trustees forced Paterno to cancel his press conference where he had planned to tell all he knew including exactly what he could remember about what he was told, and Louis Freeh REFUSED to interview him for the report despite repeated requests by Paterno to be interviewed. So as far as the truth goes, we can conclude that one side, Paterno tried repeatedly to want to tell what he knew was the truth and the other side did everything they could to prevent it. I think except for the terminal idiots among us called journalists, reasonable people can draw some conclusions from that alone especially since the side making allegations against Paterno could present no proof to substantiate them which re-enforces their motives for wanting to keep him from telling what he knew.<br /><br />Either way, there was still no basis for any sanctions of any kind against Penn State.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-64029557989787572042013-02-01T08:22:48.767-08:002013-02-01T08:22:48.767-08:00Here is one more important thing. Let's say M...Here is one more important thing. Let's say MM did say it was sexual in nature and JVP reported it to his superiors. At that point since JS is no longer on the staff--it is not any of JVP concern since he isn't responsible for the man. He did what he was supposed to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-82525497463502246282013-02-01T08:09:25.663-08:002013-02-01T08:09:25.663-08:00So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know--eve...So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know--even you--sorry)???? I know my father who is the exact same age as JVP couldn't remember a conversation from last year let alone what specifically was said 10 years ago. Plus that generation is so naive/uninformed when it comes to sexual things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-28311609329418856342013-01-31T13:27:25.365-08:002013-01-31T13:27:25.365-08:00I think it would be very interesting to hear what ...I think it would be very interesting to hear what Richard Jewell would have to say about this whole thing, considering that both his and PSU's situations involve smears emanating from Louis Freeh. I wonder if anyone has asked him about it for public consumption.Jeff in CAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13248388316448837133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-12425566191487283712013-01-31T09:47:12.811-08:002013-01-31T09:47:12.811-08:00"But Corbett was not the Attroney general in ..."But Corbett was not the Attroney general in 1998 when Sandusky first got caught.<br />The AG office had nothing to do with that investigation."<br /><br />you're half right and I did get the years wrong, but the attorney general's office did have everything to do with the Sandusky investigation when Corbett was Attorney General. The year was 2008 and the investigation went on for 3 years till 2011. Corbett as Attorney General knew all about Sandusky and the allegations against him and was privy to all the facts gathered in the investigation and declined to prosecute. He acknowledges as much and claims that his office didnt have enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky. A Google of "Tom Corbett attorney general Sandusky" will result in articles from Penn Live, Daily Beast, Politco.com and hundreds of others confirming this. But thanks for pointing out the mistake in the year -- it was not 1998 but 2008.<br />Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-3040747417298347362013-01-30T07:48:54.314-08:002013-01-30T07:48:54.314-08:00I agree 100% with your article but some of the com...I agree 100% with your article but some of the comments are factually inaccurate.<br />Tom Corbett is an opportunist & if a camera is around, he surely is in front of it.<br />But Corbett was not the Attroney general in 1998 when Sandusky first got caught.<br />The AG office had nothing to do with that investigation.<br /><br />You stated that Paterno wins were vacated since 2000.<br />Actually the NCAA vacated his wins from 1998 and did so without any explanation at all.<br />Reason being they cannot explain vacating wins in 1998 since there is no evidence that Paterno even knew of the 1998 investigation. And the 1998 investgation done by a prosecutor & state agencies (not Penn St athletics) found no issues with Sandusky.<br /><br />Otherwise, keep the comments coming & great article.Jim Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-20144130808435899902013-01-30T07:35:11.436-08:002013-01-30T07:35:11.436-08:00"And just to head you off, do not cherry pick..."And just to head you off, do not cherry pick Paterno's testimony and try and pass that off as any kind of proof."<br /><br />Yes, Marc Rubin, let's not let that pesky 'ol SWORN TESTIMONY cloud our judgment. Let's all instead focus on your efforts to rewrite history, to insult responders when they don't agree with your nonsense, to call out the media for convicting Paterno on opinion without fact and instantly turn around and shout opinions of your own with no facts. You're pathetic, Rubin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-85999455981583856822013-01-29T14:16:30.767-08:002013-01-29T14:16:30.767-08:00Why did no one ever start a petition? 99.9999 perc...Why did no one ever start a petition? 99.9999 percent of the players,students,faculty,alumni and millions of fans had nothing to do with this. Hundreds of players had hard fought wins taken back. One had a broken neck many acls tears. How much time and effort, heart and pain went into each game? I belive this was emotinal abuse by the NCAA for all PENN STATE fans. Joe Paterno would never cover this monster for any amount of wins.I was a former abuse victim of every kind. I have been taking xanax ever since the NCAA handed down their unfair punishment. Please keep on fighting for a great PENN STATE!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-80847115345195371012013-01-29T12:50:24.958-08:002013-01-29T12:50:24.958-08:00For any lawyers out there -- is the fact the Penn ...For any lawyers out there -- is the fact the Penn State agreed to the sanctions a block against a suit brought by outside parties? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-35706126112307909732013-01-29T12:49:52.653-08:002013-01-29T12:49:52.653-08:00"By the way,there is some evidence from peopl..."By the way,there is some evidence from people who claim they know who say that knowing he had to testify and not remembering the conversation, Paterno asked McQueary before he testified what the conversation was about and to refresh his memory."<br /><br />Your imagination (or anyone else's imagination) is not evidence. When confronted with unpleasant facts (i.e., Joe's testimony of knowledge of an alleged sexual incident), you cannot just make up a conversation. Would you actually find someone guilty and sentence them to prison on the basis of a conversation "imagined" by someone to exist?<br /><br /><br />Why not "imagine" a conversation in which the court stenographer admits that she took down Joe's words inaccurately and that he actually said that it was NOT a sexual nature? That would work even better than this imaginary conversation between Joe and MM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-50196947391429973282013-01-29T12:09:06.512-08:002013-01-29T12:09:06.512-08:00Wow, Marc Rubin, you are so wrong. Do you do any r...Wow, Marc Rubin, you are so wrong. Do you do any research at all? Did YOU read the grand jury testimony? Let me help you out. This is a transcript of Joe Paterno's testimony to the Grand Jury. You might want to pay attention to the statement Joe makes that says "It was a sexual nature."<br /><br />Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-15265610456964333782013-01-29T07:49:34.385-08:002013-01-29T07:49:34.385-08:00"Even the lone accusation of sexual misconduc..."Even the lone accusation of sexual misconduct and abuse against Sandusky that allegedly took place in a Penn State shower was dismissed and deemed not credible by a jury and, while it was the accusation that set off the media frenzy, it was one of three counts for which Sandusky was acquitted."<br /><br />Not true. In that incident, Sandusky was found guilty on the counts of indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corrupon of a minor and endangering a child's welfare. You can argue all you want that "indecent assault" is different from "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse," but Indecent Assault is a charge of sexual misconduct. Here is the definition of Indecent Assault in PA:<br /><br />Indecent Assault (18 Pa. C.S. § 3126)<br />(a) Offense Defined- A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant...<br /><br />Penn State can win this battle against the NCAA on the sheer facts of the case. It doesn't need people like you and John Ziegler telling the story with half-truths.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com