<p>This is a question of decency rather than gender. Barbara Hedges had a fairly strong tolerance for the raping and pillaging (literally) going on at UW.</p>
<p>While we are very focused on Penn State and what transpired at Penn State, I think it is important to remember that this particular investigation began with a young man and his mother and had nothing at all to do with Penn State.</p>
<p>The boy gives testimony in the GJ transcript. he is also backed up by the football coach at the high school and others at the high school.</p>
<p>So, while the other stuff may be more interesting from the perspective of a cover-up, I highly doubt Sandusky isn’t going to prison.</p>
<p>I have been involved in athletics as a player and coach virtually my entire life. Under no circumstances I have I seen, or heard of, coaches showering with children. </p>
<p>Understandably, the same may not be true at a public swimming pool.</p>
<p>Also, I wonder if the Penn State Police Chief will be called by the Prosecution … or the Defense. I can’t imagine a jury would look kindly on Mr. Schultz if it turned out he didn’t inform the university police department. (Oh I forgot … if you involve the police department, there’s going to be a report. Can’t have that, can we?)</p>
<p>my own experience, referencing post 2272.
SOME do. Many use the sentence- everybody deserves a defense, some don’t. Some see themselves solely as being paid to give their best efforts to represent a client.
Some will tell a potential client- don’t volunteer anything, answer only what I ask. That is their honest, but imo unethical way of saying “I didn’t know!”
So yes, some will choose not to represent a particular position, some just work for whomever hires them.</p>
<p>Hunt et al - Would a prosecuting attorney call Schultz as a witness, just to hear him say “I refuse to answer the question on grounds …?”</p>
<p>I’ve been holding back on posting this since this whole thing started, but I think it does have some bearing on what Sandusky’s lawyer MIGHT find some boys to say. I know that everyone will find this distasteful, to say the least, and I am still shocked myself.</p>
<p>When I first mentioned this case to a friend of mine–saying something to the effect of isn’t this horrible or shocking–he replied matter-of-factly that when he was 10, he was cruising movie theater bathrooms for sex with men. I was stunned. Upon further questioning, it seems that this took place when he was in 6th grade, but possibly 5th also. He also says that he had entered puberty, and described himself as an “early bloomer.” He said that the sex at that age did NOT include anal penetration.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t ultimately know what to make of it. This is a well-balanced individual who has had very long-term relationships with other adults in adult life, who has no interest in children or non-peers, and who definitely does not feel that he was raped or molested. I find it shocking that a child of that age is having sex, and I think that even if HE were willing, even if he actively invited it, that a responsible adult should not participate. I am definitely not excusing Sandusky in any way. For one thing, it is clear from the victims’ testimony that they did not willingly participate. It is also true that whether or not any of his encounters were “consensual”–which would assume that a kid of that age was capable of really consenting, which I find incredible but my friend claims is possible–they were definitely statutory rape. And I firmly believe that any responsibly adult should refuse sex with an underage, or even significantly younger person, even if it is offered. (I think that a 49 yr old who impregnates and marries a 16 yr old is defective in some way, even if she was a willing participant and “technically” old enough.)</p>
<p>Looks like Sandusky’s attorney has been a part of the team culture for many years. [PSU’s</a> Scott hit with rape charges](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07286/825200-143.stm]PSU’s”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07286/825200-143.stm)</p>
<p>That was four years ago. Any idea what happened to Scott?</p>
<p>that a kid of that age was capable of really consenting, which I find incredible but my friend claims is possible-</p>
<p>IMO, just the fact that your friend didn’t think there was anything wrong with it, to me is an indication that he couldn’t have given informed consent, because his reasoning is skewed.</p>
<p>Its one thing for 5th graders to sexually experiment alone or with their peers- however, adults are NOT peers to a 10 yr old.</p>
<p>^^^ Agree. That’s a sad story, consolation. I don’t think your friend even realizes how sad that is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I think too. As I said, I’m still reeling.</p>
<p>People read different things from the same article. From the article quoted in #2308,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t look like Paterno was taking the rape lightly.</p>
<p>a ten year old might, in fact, have an interest in having me buy him a glass of wine, or in driving my car, or all variety of things. They might want to look at the “pictures in a magazine,” whatever.</p>
<p>But that’s not the point, really, is it?</p>
<p>Of course, ultimately, the boy who first went to cps and police, was NOT interested. And has said so.</p>
<p>How does a 10-year-old boy figure out that gay men can be picked up in bathrooms?</p>
<p>^ That is a heck of a question.</p>
<p>Sadly, could this happen: he was picked up by an adult once, and then decided he liked it???
Anyway, I am still reeling from ALL of this stuff.</p>
<p>Just yikes</p>
<p>Let me be clear. I think Sandusky is guilty. I think he molested young boys. I think he molested a lot of young boys. But if I were on his jury, my opinion would not be enough. I would convict him only if the prosecution proved their case; that would be my duty.</p>
<p>And if the best the prosecution could do was to present evidence that Sandusky sometimes showered with young boys, and sometimes engaged in horseplay in the shower with young boys that did not involve touching or overt sexuality, <em>if that was the best the prosecution could do</em>, then I would have to acquit the creep.</p>
<p>^^ I’m sure thats how it happened, but the fact that the guy doesn’t think he was ever assaulted is what’s sad. Most sex acts, even for a 10yo, would feel good, and the guy is taking those feelings and conflating it with the idea of “I liked it. I wanted it.” Look, pedophiles are good at what they do – that’s why the victims ofen take responsibility.</p>
<p>Well, let’s hope they have more than that, because Sandusky and the rest of his cronies at PSU using that same defense is disgusting.</p>