We told you earlier about the testimony of Mike McQueary, the Penn State assistant coach whose account is central to the cases against Jerry Sandusky, Tim Curley (he's the Penn State athletic director, currently on leave), and Gary Schultz (the school's former senior vice president for business and finance). The latter two are charged with perjury and failure to report abuse.
But McQueary was one of five witnesses to have testified at today's preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz, which resulted in the charges against both men being held over for trial. The day's other witnesses were Thomas Harmon, the former chief of campus police, whom we told you earlier said he was never informed of the infamous shower incident; John McQueary, Mike McQueary's father; Shannon Manderbach, a court reporter in Harrisburg; and Anthony Sassano, an agent with the Pennsylvania attorney general's office. (Manderbach simply read into the record the transcripts of the previous grand jury testimony given by Curley, Schultz, and former Penn State coach Joe Paterno, which totaled 60 pages.) It was the first time the public got to hear exactly what Paterno, Curley, and Schultz told the grand jury, since only a summary had been made public before today.
Here's what we learned today, courtesy the Twitter accounts authored by various reporters and news outlets on the scene at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa.:
• Joe Paterno, in his own words, on why he waited until the following day to call anyone after hearing what McQueary had told him about seeing Sandusky with a boy in a campus shower in 2002: "I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends."
• Paterno also said he didn't press McQueary for specifics during their initial conversation, because he could see he was upset. But Paterno knew it was inappropriate and also said of what he was told that "it was a sexual nature." (After the grand jury presentment came down, Paterno issued a statement clarifying that "at no time" did McQueary relate to him "the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.")
• Paterno said the dilemma for him was that Sandusky no longer worked for him, but he did call Curley to say, "We have a problem."
• Sassano testified simply that the 2002 incident was not reported to police or to Children and Youth Services, as required under Pennsylvania law.
• John McQueary testified that, sometime after his son had called him (though not immediately), he met with Schultz and Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend. John McQueary said he informed Schultz what Mike had seen in the shower and that "at best something inappropriate was going on."
• John McQueary said he never heard the term "thrusting" when talking with his son, but he added that he didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what those "rhythmic slapping" sounds mean. John McQueary also said Schultz had told him there had been some "noise level" about Sandusky, but that there was nothing "substantial" about that. And John McQueary said Schultz, whose oversight included the campus police, "wasn't acting like an investigator."
• Curley, the athletic director, testified that Mike McQueary had only told him Sandusky was "horsing around" in the shower with the boy and that it made him uncomfortable. Curley also said he was not aware of any prior incidents involving Sandusky, but that he reported what he knew to The Second Mile and later confronted Sandusky.
• Curley did not think a crime had been committed by Sandusky. He also said he never took away Sandusky's keys, only that Sandusky was not to bring children on campus any longer.
• Schultz, the former senior VP, testified that he was given the impression Sandusky had wrestled with the boy in the shower and grabbed his genitals. He also said it was inappropriate.
• At one point, Schultz testified to this: "I don't know what sexual conduct's definition is."
• Schultz also said he didn't think it was criminal for a grown man to grab a child's genitals.
• Tom Farrell, Schultz's attorney, said in his closing argument that the impact of Mike McQueary's account was minimized when it got to Schultz because McQueary had not been as specific with Schultz as he was much later in his testimony.
• Curley's lawyer, Caroline Roberto, in her closing argument, said Mike McQueary had not gone into graphic details with Paterno in their meeting, which is why she believes there is no corroboration for McQueary's testimony. The defense argument at trial, apparently, is going to be that McQueary testified to "fondling" and things of "a sexual nature," which is not the same as "intercourse."