<p>This one just pops up about Penn State and possible civil cases against them.</p>
<p>[Analysis:</a> Penn State shouldn’t hide behind legal moves - lawyer | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-usa-crime-coach-lawsuits-idUSTRE7AE1XY20111115]Analysis:”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-usa-crime-coach-lawsuits-idUSTRE7AE1XY20111115)</p>
<p>@Hunt, good find on the Scott case outcome and record destruction twist. It further serves as warning against jumping to conclusions before the case against Sandusky is put to test in court. </p>
<p>My only point was Sandusky reached back to someone who had become familiar with the same key players in a similar situation. In fact, it looks like Scott was at least Amendola’s second PSU football client. </p>
<p>[Preliminary</a> hearing today for Austin Scott - Philly.com](<a href=“Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes”>Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes)</p>
<p>While defending Scott, counsel takes the position that the local DA’s office doesn’t afford the presumption of innocence to PSU players.</p>
<p>[Karoly</a>, Amendola issues response to prosecution | News | CentreDaily.com](<a href=“http://www.centredaily.com/2007/10/19/238255/karoly-amendola-issues-response.html]Karoly”>http://www.centredaily.com/2007/10/19/238255/karoly-amendola-issues-response.html)</p>
<p>The tension between PSU supporters and the DA is a matter of public conversation.</p>
<p>[PSU</a> backers target Centre County DA - PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/jones/index.ssf?/base/columnists/121738117226970.xml&coll=1]PSU”>http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/jones/index.ssf?/base/columnists/121738117226970.xml&coll=1)</p>
<p>Which makes me wonder, was the public sentiment that the DA was prejudiced against PSU the “conflict of interest” that caused the DA to transfer investigation of the 2008 allegation against Sandusky to the AG’s office? See, e.g., this historical overview:</p>
<p>[Former</a> Centre County DA Ray Gricar’s reasons for not pursuing case against Jerry Sandusky are unknown | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/former_centre_county_da_ray_g.html]Former”>Former Centre County DA Ray Gricar's reasons for not pursuing case against Jerry Sandusky are unknown - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>I haven’t read through every post here, but my biggest question is how is it that all of these people testified before the grand jury 11 months ago and none of it came out until now??</p>
<p>Also what about attorney that disappeared early on in the case? What’s the story there?</p>
<p>Even if Penn State officials didn’t believe McQ at all, it still boggles the mind that there was nothing written about JoePa’s communication that “something of a sexual nature” might have occurred between a 58-year-old man and a 10-year-old boy on the Penn State campus.</p>
<p>Joe Paterno sweeps away another issue years before?</p>
<p>Philly.com article:</p>
<p>I met Joe Paterno in 1979 or 1980 when he came to a high school near the rural, small-town newspaper where I started in this business. He came to witness a player, a huge local star at an offensive skill position, signing his letter of intent to play for Paterno.</p>
<p>The player went to Penn State but had only one letterman season and left abruptly before completing his eligibility. Some years later, I reminded Paterno of our first meeting and said something about it being a shame the player didn’t work out.</p>
<p>“Yeah, you know, we never had that problem up here before with cocaine. It took us by surprise,” Paterno said.</p>
<p>I was surprised myself at the time but never thought that much about it until last week. Was there a drug bust, or a police report? Not that I remember, and I tried to follow the player closely. Was the player just sent home quietly and allowed to take his problem elsewhere?</p>
<p>Maybe that worked out for him, if that was the case. Maybe not. We know that simply telling Jerry Sandusky to take his problem elsewhere didn’t work out well for all his victims after 2002.</p>
<p>Whether those on campus who knew Sandusky were actually aware of the extent of his alleged problem is the fulcrum on which the rest of this will move. If people know things, those things will come out. Secrets are as dangerous as unexploded land mines. They are bound to go off eventually.</p>
<p>That is why there might be even worse weeks to come for the Penn State community. It doesn’t seem possible that could be true, but after last week, it is obvious there is no longer a limit to what is possible.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>cbug- you could read through all 2300+ posts on this thread, and you still would not have an answer to your questions! There are still many more questions and speculations than answers right now.</p>
<p>cbug, the story was leaked last spring in the Harrisburg newspaper. The national press ignored it.</p>
<p>Just the fact that a 10-year-old boy was in the Penn State locker room at 9:30 at night with someone other than his family would set alarms going off in my head. Kid should have been home in bed. </p>
<p>Perhaps it was OK 50 years ago for a coach and a kid to be naked in the showers, but in today’s world, every person who works with a child must know that they just cannot be alone, naked, with a child, no matter how innocent the activity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like a completely inappropriate response by Paterno. If the student athlete failed a drug test, those results are to be confidential. Was he trying to be sure that you knew there was a failure by the student and not the program?</p>
<p>It is very convenient to continue to argue as if the ONLY cases under investigation or to be brought to trial were the cases which occured in the locker room at Penn State.</p>
<p>However, as I pointed out earlier, a young man has come forward to testify, and he and his mother were the ones to go to CPS in the first place, which brought about this particular investigation. His testimony about Sandusky’s behavior at the high school has been corroborated by the high school coach & others. Sandusky is accused of having forced oral sex on this young boy more than 20 times. Interestingly, there is nothing mentioned about the shower in his testimony, only the wrestling room at the high school.</p>
<p>He will go to prison.</p>
<p>Whether or not this will lead to a conviction for a cover up at psu, who knows?</p>
<p>“taking the coward’s way out”</p>
<p>If Sandusky ends up charged with child rape in Texas, I’d call suicide the rational actor’s way out.</p>
<p>Well his goose is officially cooked. By his own admission he is a 58-year old man who likes to have horseplay with naked 10 year old in the shower. And the prosecution has not even had to do anything to get that out there.</p>
<p>With the witnesses, testimony this cat is going away forever.</p>
<p>And this begs the question as to what was Paterno doing having this guy around for so long? There is a good reason he lawyered up and is saying nothing. There is not a lot he can say to explain this. </p>
<p>And now another Charity, the Fresh Air Fund, is cooperating with a new investigation. Apperntly Sandusky hosted at least one of its disadvantaged youth at his house in the mid 1990s.</p>
<p>And that answer he gave when asked point blank about whether he was sexually attracted to young boys is unreal. See link below for the interview and a transcript of that exchange</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky Stammers Through Question From Bob Costas: ‘Are You Sexually Attracted to Young Boys?’ (Video) - NESN Newswire - NESN.com](<a href=“http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandusky-stammers-through-question-from-bob-costas-are-you-sexually-attracted-to-young-boys.html]Jerry”>http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandusky-stammers-through-question-from-bob-costas-are-you-sexually-attracted-to-young-boys.html)</p>
<p>One thing that baffles me, with the story first breaking months ago, why were the Board of Trustees so clueless? Why did Spanier, who is usually spot on in his public relations, make such ill-advised remarks? Why wasn’t there some discussion ahead of time with Paterno about possible outcomes? Where they just hoping it would somehow go away?</p>
<p>
Of course not. However, I can’t respect anybody who criticizes a criminal defense attorney for taking his, or anybody else’s case. Perhaps some people choose not to take some kinds of cases because they don’t think they’d be able to provide a good defense. I knew one defense attorney who (after some soul-searching) declined to represent a neo-Nazi because he decided the client wanted to hire him just because he (the attorney) was Jewish. But this idea that some defendants are so horrible that nobody should take their case unless forced to do so is destructive to respect for our legal system.</p>
<p>Yikes. When I see a charged defendant giving an interview, I can’t suppress the lawyer in me screaming: “Oh my God, what are you doing on TV? You’re writing a valentine to the prosecutors! Shut up! Shut up!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely this is illegal just on its own. Aren’t there laws against indecent exposure?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve made it VERY VERY CLEAR that I am NOT “rationalizing” having ANY kind of sex with a 10 year old, and that I find it abhorrent and WRONG. NO MATTER WHAT. This predictable attack is why I hesitated to even bring up my friend’s story, even though I think it is pertinent to people’s understanding.</p>
<p>OhioMom, the concept of “forcible” rape vs other forms is one that has been discussed at length in other threads about sexual assault on campuses. I believe it was Mini who first mentioned it. It was in the context of pointing out that many people, when they hear the word “rape” think only of “forcible” rape–ie, rape that involves outright physical violence or threat of harm. For that reason, sometimes people do not understand why having sex with a person who cannot properly give consent–such as an intoxiated person (not unconscious)–is considered rape.Please not that I am NOT advocating or condoning or rationalizing non-consensual sex, simply describing a conversation to you.</p>
<p>As to what else Sandusky could have been doing, since apparently imagination fails, I will describe it. I have read that a common sexual practice between youths and men in Ancient Greece was for the youth to hold his legs together and the man to “penetrate” between them, rather than into an orifice. For that poor child’s sake, I hope that Sandusky was doing something like that. As I said before, it is still molestation and still rape and still completely abhorrent, but less horrific for the child. So sue me, that I hope the kid was at least spared what would have been a lot of physical pain.</p>
<p>^ What did the kid say when interviewed? Oh I forgot … no effort was made to find him and get his story. Could Penn State officials have conjured a worse public relations nightmare?</p>
<p>Like the Catholic Church, PSU made a gamble: that they would not get “caught” (i.e. that S’s misdeeds would come out into the open).
The Catholic Church also made this gamble. It also tried to deny what happened after things started to come out, even in court. Things did not end well for the Catholic Church.
And the gamble taken was an immoral act as it left the predator available to continue the activities that were illegal and so evil to children. The gamble was not legal or moral option for the superiors, if they had full info about the incidents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From an earlier post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I just don’t get why you think there is a “strong possibility that what the GA saw was not anal penetration.” The GA testified under oath that he observed anal penetration. This “ancient Greek practice” to which you refer gives you a “strong” reason to think the GA either lied or was mistaken? I just don’t get that. I understand that you would prefer this to be the reality because the other is “too horrible to think about,” but how does wishing it were so translate into you stating that there is a “strong possibility” that the GA didn’t know what he was actually seeing? This kind of wishful thinking is rather disturbing, I think, not so much because you are displaying it, but because it seems to have occurred at the time in people who had an opportunity and a duty to act on what they were told, not what they preferred to believe.</p>
<p>I doubt JoePa was told about ancient Greek practices.</p>