A man testified in court in 2014 that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno ignored his complaints of a sexual assault committed by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in 1976 when the man was a 14-year-old boy, according to new court documents unsealed Tuesday in a Philadelphia court.
The victim, who was identified in court records as John Doe 150, said that while he was attending a football camp at Penn State, Sandusky touched him as he showered. Sandusky’s finger penetrated the boy’s rectum, Doe testified in court in 2014, and the victim asked to speak with Paterno about it. Doe testified that he specifically told Paterno that Sandusky had sexually assaulted him, and Paterno ignored it.
“Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, ‘I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?'” the man’s lawyer asked him in 2014.
“Specifically. Yes … I was shocked, disappointed, offended. I was insulted… I said, is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?”
Paterno, the man testified, just walked away.
Collectively, the documents released Tuesday contain multiple allegations of incidents involving Sandusky acting improperly with young boys witnessed by or reported to several Penn State athletics officials over a 22-year time span before the first time someone notified law enforcement, in 1998. The documents stem from a lawsuit between the university and its insurance company. Sandusky was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in prison after his conviction in 2012. Penn State settled with 32 victims, paid out nearly $93 million, and is trying to get reimbursed by its insurance company.
A man identified in court documents as John Doe 75 testified that, in 1987, when he was a 13-year-old boy, an assistant coach at Penn State witnessed Sandusky with his hand down the boy’s shorts and did nothing. The boy and Sandusky were alone in a coaches’ meeting room, and Sandusky was touching the boy, Doe testified, when assistant coach Joe Sarra walked into the meeting room. Startled, Sarra, immediately left and closed the door behind him, and Sandusky kissed the boy on his forehead, Doe 75 testified.
Sarra died in 2012.
A man identified as John Doe 101 testified in 2014 that knowledge of Sandusky consorting in questionable ways with young boys who were not his children was well-known within the Penn State football program.
In 1988, Doe 101 said, a weight room assistant named Kevin O’Dea saw the boy lying on a black leather couch in an athletics facility, in his underwear, with Sandusky seated on the floor rubbing the boy’s back.
“Did Mr. O’Dea say anything when he came in and saw that?,” his lawyer asked.
“No,” Doe 101 said.
O’Dea, who last coached with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, did not immediately respond to request for comment Tuesday morning.
Doe 101 also testified it was well-known to the team and coaches that boys stayed in Sandusky’s room with him in the team hotel the night before home games in State College, and that he routinely showered with Sandusky and other coaches – including Paterno – and no one raised an eyebrow as Sandusky lathered up a boy who was not his son and engaging in “horseplay.”
“Would any of the other coaches bring young men back … and shower with them?,” his lawyer asked.
“Some of the coaches’ sons would come in and work out,” Doe 101 said. “But I don’t believe I ever saw any, just, coaches bringing random children in and showering with them.”
The documents released Tuesday also includes new testimony from former Penn State grad assistant Mike McQuery in which McQuery said others on the Penn State staff were aware of Sandusky’s behavior around young boys, including current college football assistant coaches Tom Bradley and Greg Schiano. McQuery witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in a shower at Penn State in 2001, he testified in court, and informed Paterno of the incident.
In a 2015 deposition, McQuery testified he also briefly discussed what he had seen with Bradley, who is now UCLA’s defensive coordinator. When McQuery told Bradley what he saw Sandusky doing to a boy in a shower, McQuery said, Bradley was “not shocked.”
“[Bradley] said he knew of some things,” McQueary said. “… He said another assistant coach had come to him in the early ’90s about a very similar situation to mine, and he said that he had — someone had to come to him as far back as the early ’80s about Jerry doing something with a boy.”
According to McQueary, Bradley identified Schiano, now the Ohio State defensive coordinator, as the other assistant and, in response to a question about whether Bradley had shared details of what Schiano had said, he related a conversation with Bradley.
“No,” McQueary replied, “only that he had — I can’t remember if it was one night or one morning — but that Greg had come into his office white as a ghost and said he just saw Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower. And that’s it. That’s all he ever told me.”
McQueary added that he didn’t know whether Bradley had reported the incident, which he said happened in “like 2005, ’06; it could have been anywhere in there.”
According to McQueary, he and Bradley discussed their frustration with the access to Penn State facilities that Sandusky had. “Tom was kind of a — yeah, he would be upset and frustrated about that, like I was,” McQueary said.
The family of Paterno, who died in January 2012, denied in a statement Tuesday that any coverup had taken place. It regarded the university’s $93 million payout to 32 victims as a step taken “without fully assessing the underlying facts” and “something that the University obviously felt they had to do to help resolve this matter.”
The Paternos’ attorney released the following statement:
From the beginning, the Paterno family has been outspoken in their desire for the complete truth in the Sandusky tragedy. They have also repeatedly called for due process for all affected parties. With this latest release of information, the total mishandling of the Sandusky investigation is highlighted once again.
The overwhelming evidence confirms that Joe Paterno never engaged in a cover up of Jerry Sandusky’s crimes. Multiple independent parties have confirmed this conclusion.
In fact, consistent with University rules, Joe reported an allegation about Sandusky to administration officials. As President Barron stated in his message to the University earlier today, an environment where faculty and staff feel protected in reporting wrongdoing is a key objective of the University.
The materials released today relating to Joe Paterno allege a conversation that occurred decades ago where all parties except the accuser are now dead. In addition, there are numerous specific elements of the accusations that defy all logic and have never been subjected to even the most basic objective examination. Most significantly, there is extensive evidence that stands in stark contrast to this claim.
That Penn State chose to settle claims without fully assessing the underlying facts is something that the University obviously felt they had to do to help resolve this matter. We understand their desire for closure, but it does not remotely validate the assertions about an uncorroborated conversation with Joe Paterno.
When the Sandusky scandal first became public in 2011, there was a lot of rhetoric in the media about using this case as a model to help prevent other child sex abuse scandals. Sadly, one of the lessons from the Sandusky tragedy is how not to investigate a crime of this type.
Scott Paterno, one of the five children of Joe and Sue Paterno, took to Twitter to defend his father, referring to his father as “JVP” and writing that “the allegations in ’76 simply are not credible when you read the full alleged context.”
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno
Also of note: not a single allegation outside of '98 or '01 have any documentation that they were reported to anyone. Just claimants.
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2016-07-12T13:05:02+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: 12 Jul 2016, 13:05:02 (UTC)">9:05 AM - 12 Jul 2016</time>
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno Headlines that "Joe knew in '76" are based on a single uncorroborated report of an incident allegedly witnessed by 6 other people.
Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno
Yet not one of the 6 witnesses, nor any of the "many players and coaches" allegedly also told could be produced to corroborate.
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2016-07-12T13:10:21+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: 12 Jul 2016, 13:10:21 (UTC)">9:10 AM - 12 Jul 2016
</time>Scott Paterno @ScottPaterno In short, '76 allegations are simple not credible on their face.
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2016-07-12T13:10:45+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: 12 Jul 2016, 13:10:45 (UTC)">9:10 AM - 12 Jul 2016
</time>The documents came to light in May, when a line in a court order noted that one of Penn State’s insurers claimed that “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he [the child] was sexually molested by Sandusky.” The order also cited the 1987 and 1988 references to unnamed assistant coaches witnessing the contact between Sandusky and unidentified children and a 1988 case that allegedly was referred to Penn State’s athletic director. According to a review of the case file by PennLive, the order states that all of this is in victims’ depositions taken as part of an insurance case that is still pending.
“There is no evidence that reports of these incidents ever went further up the chain of command at PSU,” Glazer wrote in May. He determined that because Penn State’s president and trustees were unaware of the allegations, he would not bar claims from that time frame from insurance coverage.
Penn State President Eric Barron, in a statement on the university’s website, writes:
Penn State’s overriding concern has been, and remains, for the victims of Jerry Sandusky. While individuals hold different opinions, and may draw different inferences from the testimony about former Penn State employees, speculation by Penn State is not useful. We must be sensitive to all individuals involved, and especially to those who may be victims of child sexual abuse. It also makes it much more difficult for Penn State to create an environment where victims of sexual abuse feel comfortable coming forward and where students, faculty and staff feel protected in reporting wrongdoing.
Although settlements have been reached, it also is important to reiterate that the alleged knowledge of former Penn State employees is not proven, and should not be treated as such. Some individuals deny the claims, and others are unable to defend themselves.
Speculation also serves to drive a wedge within the Penn State community. I would ask that we remember our University’s primary mission is to focus on research, education and service. Let’s be respectful of other viewpoints and focus on our mission. The University is committed to ensuring our campuses are safe for children, and to ongoing prevention and education programs and research that contribute to a better society.
Although settlements have been reached, it also is important to reiterate that the alleged knowledge of former Penn State employees is not proven, and should not be treated as such. Some individuals deny the claims, and others are unable to defend themselves.
Speculation also serves to drive a wedge within the Penn State community. I would ask that we remember our University’s primary mission is to focus on research, education and service. Let’s be respectful of other viewpoints and focus on our mission. The University is committed to ensuring our campuses are safe for children, and to ongoing prevention and education programs and research that contribute to a better society.
