<p>“Because of this, charges may not stick (especially with a good lawyer) and I can see a scenario in which he is charged with just poor judgement.”</p>
<p>I see your point. But I would imagine one or two victims coming forward will take care of that. </p>
<p>Sandusky’s whole defense now seems to be “colluding” with the fired PSU officials, who claim they were only told it was horseplay. This is why it smacks PSU so much in the face.</p>
<p>goingmyway, that is a good point. If the case against Shultz and the AD are not successful (basically McQ word against them and possibly Paterno), then the case against Sandusky case is greatly weakened.</p>
<p>Exactly. But the problem PSU will have with that, IMO, is that it will come off as if they are once again banding together, with Sandusky, to cover up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember, the defense will come up with a bunch of boys who continue to have a good relationship with Sandusky and claim there was nothing inproper in his behavior and yes, they showered together. They are alluding to the possibility of knowing who boy #2 (who was seen being raped by McQ) is and getting him to testify that the rape did not occur. Of course this is plausible as boy #2 may have repressed the experience or victims of child molestation often deny they were molested. I think it may be a tough case for the prosecution.</p>
<p>The behavior of Sandusky’s lawyer seems strange. The best I can figure out is that he’s signalling to the prosecution that the case isn’t going to be easy for them. And if some of the victims won’t testify, or if they contradict what’s in the grand jury report, it really won’t be easy. It may be that more horrible stuff will come out and bury Sandusky, but it may not, too. Indeed, if some of the things (the “pimping out” story, for example) turn out to be wild rumors with no basis, that will add support to Sandusky’s position that the whole thing was blown out of proportion. Remember, the trial jury (in theory) only gets to see what is presented to them, and that’s only admissible evidence. So, for example, some of the damning things in the grand jury report may never go before a trial jury if there’s not a witness willing and able to confirm it. And we don’t know what kind of defense witnesses may emerge to say, perhaps, that Sandusky engaged in “harmless horseplay” all the time but not sexual abuse.</p>
<p>So, this may be posturing to get the best possible terms in a plea.</p>
<p>What IF: Penn St stepped forward and announced that after an internal investigation that the school did indeed cover up for Sandusky. They were aware of his behavior and that the school has severed all ties with the administrators and coaches involved.</p>
<p>Would their liability be any greater than if they mount a defense and the court rules against them? Bottom Line: IF THERE WAS A COVER UP, Is there any incentive for Penn St to do the right thing now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>depends on the value others place on doing the morally correct thing. However, I do not think many would be happy with PSU just stating that they screwed up and have replaced staff that acted inappropriately. They would be “forced” to release the findings, and cooperate with legal proceedings as well.</p>
<p>“I can’t believe Sandusky’s attorney is letting him say all this. I have to say that I don’t believe a word he’s saying. He is saying that McQueary completely made it up.”</p>
<p>“And 8 other victims (possibly more coming) are lining up to testify against him, plus 1998 incident. If it was only McQ words against him, then Sandusky might have a chance but 8 other victims are very powerful and convincing evidence.”</p>
<p>Do not forget what the two janitors witnessed as well.</p>
<p>"I am trying to figure out if Schulz merely “oversaw” the university police in an administrative capacity, but was not actually a police officer…in which case the 2002 shower rape was not even handled by campus police. The director of University police is Steve Shelow:</p>
<p>He was JP of finance and “effectively” oversaw univeristy police.</p>
<p>“Suppose that a blameless man innocently showered naked with young boys. (Work with me here, he was used to communal showers, he thought it was more efficient if everyone showered at the same time, whatever.) I could possibly buy that, if that blameless man hadn’t been told by the police to stop showering with boys because it made him look like a child molester. He wouldn’t keep hugging young boys and soaping up their backs. What non-child-molester would continue these showers?”</p>
<p>Not only that, we are talking about 10 year old boys here. 10 year old boys do not even need to shower after playing football, like a high schooler would. How many parents of 10 year old boys allow them to shower after a football practice at a stadium, period? If my 10 year old needs a shower after practice, he can take one at home. Extremely inappropriate.</p>
<p>“And it still bothers me that an accused serial child molestor/rapist was let out on comparatively low bail without even an electronic bracelet, by a judge who should have recused herself given her volunteer work with Sandusky’s organization. Talk about an appearance of impropriety.”</p>
<p>This is starting to be a bad reflection on the whole state.</p>
<p>Pardon all these posts, I’m catching up from yesterday.</p>
<p>I don’t think this points to a deficiency in "sports " or “universities” or “coaches”…I think this points to a deficiency in many men (sorry for the sexism). I think if some women knew about this stuff, it would have been better reported and exposed.</p>
<p>Have any of you watched that show, “What Would You Do”? The show has actors pretending to be doing horrid things in public and then the cameras catch how “regular folks” respond. It’s nearly always the WOMEN who come to the “victim’s aid”. Rarely do the men get involved - even when the horrid behavior is going on right in front of them. When my H and I watch that show, we are appalled. My H always comments about how lame the men are. </p>
<p>Too many men just don’t like to “get involved,” speak up, and expose horrid behavior.</p>
<p>In reference to the post about the janitor testifying I believe I read the janitor that witnessed the event now has dementia.</p>
<p>Another question will the 1998 report where Sandusky was told to stop showering make it into a trial?</p>
<p>Why would McQueary make this up? How could he have so badly “misperceived” what was going on? Who has a greater incentive to lie, Sandusky or McQueary? Why would the janitors lie about Sandusky? Have the janitors or McQueary falsely accused anyone other than Sandusky of sexual abuse of a child? Why would McQueary’s tell his father this story, and then report to Paterno, if he were not certain of what he saw?</p>
<p>Sandusky has to discredit two or more adults, not just child / victims. I suppose it is possible that Sandusky could beat criminal charges, but it seems unlikely. I seriously doubt he would beat a civil case with the lower burden of proof.</p>
<p>I just saw the post about the janitor. Nonetheless, McQueary is a serious problem for Sandusky. Again, I hope that McQueary is not too seriously tarnished in the court of public opinion before jurors evaluate his testimony in a court of law.</p>
<p>As other posters have noted, that was an odd interview with Bob Costas. Sandusky’s answers seemed unprepared and were delivered in a hesitant monotone that sounded like he had just woken up from a nap. Shouldn’t he be on some sort of suicide-watch?</p>
<p>“In reference to the post about the janitor testifying I believe I read the janitor that witnessed the event now has dementia.”</p>
<p>Do you have a reference for that Tom? And I believe there was more than one janitor as I have always read “janitors”. If one has a case a dementia, there should still be a record, should anyway, of his first reporting at the time. If no written record of the first report exists, more evidence of cover up.</p>
<p>“Shouldn’t he be on some sort of suicide-watch?”</p>
<p>He actually should not be out on bail as he could be considered a danger to the public due to the nature of the charges and he could also be a flight risk, as it has been speculated if convicted he could die in prison because of his age.</p>
<p>He is in major denial though.</p>
<p>^^^It was in a couple of the many stories that were linked. The janitor who witnessed it, Calhoun, now has dementia. He told a coworker, but I don’t think either of them reported it to a boss.</p>
<p>What continues to make PSU seem complicit with Sandusky is its continued support of Curley and Schultz -the 2 people who say they thought it was “horseplay” and “not that serious.” While the 2 people who say it was sexual and inappropriate have been either fired (Paterno) or placed on leave (McQueary).</p>
<p>PSU should not be paying the legal bills for Curley and Schultz and Schultz’s retirement package (450K cash plus 330K/year) is obscene.</p>
<p>The Costas interview was lame.</p>
<p>Poor interview, despite the fawning admiration from Brian Williams last night and Matt Lauer this morning. Costas should have been embarrassed by his collegues’ faux praise.</p>
<p>Costas handled the interview like a typical ‘post game analysis’ sports story, or even worse, like reality TV. It seems like Costas’ questions were intended to shock the listener, not to ferret out any facts. There was one good moment, however, when Costas asked Sandusky if Paterno ever admonished Sandusky to seek help.</p>
<p>“The Costas interview was lame.”</p>
<p>There was probalby some type of agreement as to what would be asked in order for Sandusky to appear.</p>