<p>This is the NJ case discussed previously. I worked in the area then and remember the case very well.</p>
<p>In Maplewood, New Jersey, in April 1985,[1] Margaret Kelly Michaels was indicted for 299 offenses in connection with the sexual assault of 33 children.[33] Michaels denied the charges.[34] “The prosecution produced expert witnesses who said that almost all the children displayed symptoms of sexual abuse.”[35] Prosecution witnesses testified that the children “had regressed into such behavior as bed-wetting and defecating in their clothing. The witnesses said the children became afraid to be left alone or to stay in the dark.”[35] Some of the other teachers testified against her.[35] “The defense argued that Miss Michaels did not have the time or opportunity to go to a location where all the activities could have taken place without someone seeing her.”[35] Michaels was sentenced to 47 years in the “sex case.”[36] Michaels “told the judge that she was confident her conviction would be overturned on appeal.”[36] After five years in prison her appeal was successful and sentence was overturned by a New Jersey appeals court. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and declared “the interviews of the children were highly improper and utilized coercive and unduly suggestive methods.”[37] A three judge panel ruled she had been denied a fair trial, because “the prosecution of the case had relied on testimony that should have been excluded because it improperly used an expert’s theory, called the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, to establish guilt.”[38] The original judge was also criticized “for the way in which he allowed the children to give televised testimony from his chambers.”[38]</p>
<p>I am happy to say I was outraged at what I believed happened before I had any idea about the race of the alleged victims. So for me, race did not play a part in my feelings.
Does mini want us to believe this is a race issue because Sandusky unfairly gave his personal preference to Americans of African ancestry, and seems to have ignored Americans of European ancestry? Were they unfairly protecting the privacy/reputations of black victims? Were they unfairly protecting the privacy/reputations of white coaches? Assuming a cover-up, were those in power protecting their own as$ and it had nothing to do with race? Does mini think the football team should be more racially balanced, nearer the general poulation of the U.S., or it that imbalance ok?</p>
<p>Qdogpa - wow. I had no idea that racists were only located in certain states/regions/counties! If you have a link to a map, I hope you will share it. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>younghoss, mini was linking to an issue that is being reported on today. If you read the articles, it’s not the racial factor that crosses over, but the minimizing of the serious issue by the same folks that also failed to report Sandusky’s activities.</p>
<p>Allowing Sandusky on campus was another charge that Paterno did not do enough and supposedly indicated another significant part that Paterno was complicit in this. You see Paterno had all the power and if he did not want someone on campus they were not on campus.</p>
<p>Nope. On the plagiarism thread we have one student newspaper article as evidence. On this thread, an exhaustive grand jury report. Very different. But I don’t expect you to see, or acknowledge, the difference.</p>
<p>Tom, I think what you are trying to say is that Paterno could not keep Sandusky off campus for the same reasons that PSU is stating they can not keep him off campus…sorry if I am wrong. </p>
<p>My thought on that is even if Paterno could not find a legal way to keep Sandusky off campus, I am certian that he could have made it a very unwelcoming/uninviting environment for him to discourage him from being there. Like making sure he did not have an office any longer, not being part of the board for his charity, not letting him run his camps on campus…you and I both know that when ANY athletic director has a problem with another organization using their facilities for any reason they can find a way to block that use. Even if it is because they have a personal grudge against the person/organization. </p>
<p>So I am sure that your rationale will be used as a “defense” for why Sandusky continued his campus access, I just think that it is more of an after thought than the actual reason why Sandusky still had full access.</p>
<p>Most if not all the previous big cases of alleged child abuse involved very young children (mostly under 5) and guided interviews. BIG difference from kids 8-10 or so with eyewitnesses and other evidence including grooming activties and self-admission of some previous very questionable conduct. Not comparable at all.</p>
<p>Maybe he could not bar Sandusky from the campus, but he sure could have stopped the PSU football players from going to Second Mile, he could have stopped Second Mile from having activities on satellite campuses, not served on the board for his charity after 2002. And it sound like Joe did not care one way or another anyway. It sure sounds like he did not ever try</p>
<p>annasdad- does exhaustive mean one sided or do you not understand what a grand jury report is? Will you acknowledge that it is a one sided document not necessarily the truth or should we just have grand juries and skip trials? By the way what did Paterno do so wrong as shown in the GJ report.</p>
<p>Kumit- we do not know why Paterno continued assisting Second Mile- maybe we should wait to see why before we decide he was wrong to do so.</p>
<p>vlines- I asked this earlier do we have any information on what Paterno and Sandusky’s relationship was like since 2002? Also was it Paterno who supplied offices to Sandusky or the AD and the College Administration. I do not deny that Paterno was a powerful man but I have not seen yet where he was able to use his power to deny access or fire people not on his staff. Are there examples or do we just perceive he had that power?</p>
<p>An ESPN column worth reading, by Rick Reilly, not about the Penn State allegations in particular but about the long-term effects of sexual abuse on young boys in general:</p>
<p>Exactly. The daycare cases were built on never-substantiated theories and prosecuted by crusading zealots. Ultimately, the children were abused…by the authorities. This case is totally different.</p>
<p>“I do not deny that Paterno was a powerful man but I have not seen yet where he was able to use his power to deny access or fire people not on his staff. Are there examples or do we just perceive he had that power?”</p>
<p>tt- can you clarify for me- do you mean he used his power to get keep his job. I have seen many powerful men do that but it is very infrequent where even powerful men can deny things to others that by contract or policy they are allowed.</p>