If Paterno's insistence above is true, then what difference would it make?
Because both the GJ presentment and the GJ findings are very careful not to describe what McQueary said he told Paterno. And if McQueary is called to testify publicly in a criminal proceeding against Sandusky, or in any one of the countless possible criminal or civil suits, or state or federal investigations or hearings, McQueary may well say that he told Paterno that it was anal rape.
Second, if Paterno lives long enough, then he may have to testify publicly, or be deposed, in one of these criminal or civll suits or investigations or hearings.
Then there's the matter of the 1998 University Police investigation into incidents (plural) of Sandusky in the football showers with boys. Somebody may have to testify about whether Joe Paterno knew about that investigation, and whether he knew of the findings, and whether he saw a copy of any reports or memos.
And the 2002 incident when a janitor observed Sandusky committing oral sodomy on a boy in the football showers.
Not only may we hear from the other party to the 2002 conversation that Paterno 'insists" was only about fondling or "something of a sexual nature", but we may hear of many other things that Paterno knew . . . and not in the context of a trial or attack on Paterno. Simply in the context of the barrage of lawsuits and investigations and hearings that are going to follow this.