<p>
More likely the defense will call him to testify–as he (apparently) did to the grand jury, that McQueary didn’t tell him about any rape.
I think there’s a reasonable chance that the 2002 incident won’t be part of an actual trial of Sandusky, if they have enough other episodes with victims who will testify.</p>
<p>Consolation, what a shocking story.</p>
<p>Sandusky and his lawyer might know of a young man who “consented” to sex with Sandusky when the man was 10 years old. But presenting the man as a defense witness would backfire spectacularly. Sandusky, his lawyer and the young man might all believe that a 10-year-old’s “consent” constituted a defense, but everyone else would think it proved Sandusky is a child molester.</p>
<p>Cardinal - I respect your view, and I think it’s eminently defensible. But there’s a HUGE gulf between “sufficient evidence for conviction” and good judgement. I can’t imagine any parent delivering their 10-year-old son to an otherwise empty shower room with the words “Now just go in there and do what Uncle Jerry says to. It’ll be good for Daddy’s career.” Even if they were certain Uncle Jerry Sandusky was absolutely PURE, very few parents could choke those words out. Actually send their kid in there? Never.</p>
<p>Here’s a little followup on the Austin Scott story: [College</a> Football Notebook: Beano Cook lands College Hall honor](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11194/1159965-449.stm]College”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11194/1159965-449.stm)
And even more relevant:
<a href=“http://www.mcall.com/news/all-chargesdropped041908,0,1953370.story[/url]”>http://www.mcall.com/news/all-chargesdropped041908,0,1953370.story</a></p>
<p>Thanks, Hunt. Charges dropped, civil lawsuit by Scott against PSU thrown out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, please don’t confuse gay men with pedophiles. Gay men do not seek out 10-year-old-boys for sex; pedophiles do.</p>
<p>I agree with what you say, NewHope, but I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. As far as I know, no one has said that the mothers of the victims delivered their sons to the locker room late at night to shower with Sandusky.</p>
<p>If Sandusky is telling the truth and all the shower activity was innocent, which I don’t believe for a millisecond, he is guilty of astonishingly bad judgment. Bad judgment is not a crime. The prosecution has to prove he committed a crime.</p>
<p>Absolutely, Mary. Thanks for posting that.</p>
<p>Hunt - Thanks. It seems that the Penn State officials need to categorize their handling of the situation. I’d probably go for “correct based on the information we had.” In order to make that work, the defense might want to limit testimony from all involved.</p>
<p><strong><em>Please, please don’t confuse gay men with pedophiles. Gay men do not seek out 10-year-old-boys for sex; pedophiles do.</em></strong></p>
<p>Ooops, sorry, that was not my intention. You’re right, I should have said pedophiles, not gay men.</p>
<p>I have known and have been friends with several gay men, and I love them.</p>
<p>“As far as I know, no one has said that the mothers of the victims delivered their sons to the locker room late at night to shower with Sandusky.”</p>
<p>My point exactly. No parent would deliver a youth under those circumstances. Sandusky took them there (knowing full well he’d never get permission to do so).</p>
<p>Igloee, coaches generally find a away to penalize mis-behavior of valuable players in a way that lo and behold doesn’t keep them from playing , once they are expendable-like Scott was- they bring the hammer down. More moral courage and positive life lessons on display.
Witness Steve Spurrier and his treatment of Stephen Garcia. After years of disciplinary problems with Garcia he finds the courage to kick him off the team only after his performance gets so bad on the field that he loses his job.</p>
<p>One thing to note from the Austin Scott case is that when more information came out, the case started to look quite different–so much so that the prosecution felt they couldn’t go forward. But note that the prosecution tried very hard to suppress the information they didn’t like. This stuff is always complicated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still doesn’t prove he committed a crime, NewHope.</p>
<p>^ I was speaking about the gulf between “evidence for conviction” and good judgement. Even if Uncle Jerry is innocent of the crimes he’s accused of, is there any question that taking that boy into the shower room showed incredibly bad judgement?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None whatsoever. But I don’t think he’s innocent. ETA: My point is simply that the prosecution has to prove he committed a crime. Proving that he had bad judgment is worth nothing, so it’s not worth considering.</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s innocent, either. But I think there’s a genuine possibility that he won’t be convicted of any crime. What then?</p>
<p>Small world: The lawyer for Austin Scott is the same lawyer who is representing Sandusky:
</p>
<p>Also, said lawyer got a 16 year old girl (whom he was representing in an emancipation hearing) pregnant in 1996 (he was 49 at the time). He did eventually end up marrying her but they are now separated.</p>
<p>[The</a> Daily - Breaking: Sandusky Lawyer Impregnated A Teen](<a href=“New York Post – Breaking News, Top Headlines, Photos & Videos”>New York Post – Breaking News, Top Headlines, Photos & Videos)
</p>
<p>Not to belabor the point of my friend and his sex life at the age of 10, but it does have some POSSIBLE bearing on the scene witnessed by McQueary. In that what he witnessed was not necessarily <em>forcible</em> rape. IMHO, it was still rape, even if the 10 yr old “consented.” (With all of the obvious caveats around the concept that a 10 yr old COULD consent to sex with an adult.) IMHO, there is also a strong possibility that what the GA saw was not actual penetration…</p>
<p>Maybe I’m grasping at these possibilities because the idea of a 10 yr old being forcibly raped anally is just too horrible to think about. It certainly isn’t to excuse Sandusky or make him any less culpable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? You don’t think you would know this if you saw it? A boy pinned against the wall while an older man thrusts him from behind, making “slapping sounds?” Isn’t this the description from the GJ report?</p>
<p>I am not impressed with McQueary’s reaction to what he saw-I think he absolutely should have either stopped it and called the police or at least called police. However, if he testifies under oath that what he saw was anal penetration, I will believe him.</p>