<p>30 years ago I was living in a boarding house situation. I SAW through a back yard window a mother sexually abusing her 3 year old daughter. I did not call my “superior” the landlord. I called the police and I called Department of Familly Services (or whatever it was called in CA.) I followed up with them, cooperated fully, and testified at the trial, which didn’t take more than a decade! If JoePa would have done the same, Sandusky would have been off the streets long ago. Shame on him.</p>
<p>Joe Paterno wasn’t exactly a spring chicken. He was getting older, and most older folks I know don’t remember things as well as the younguns.</p>
<p>I do find it fascinating that he sold his family home to his wife for a $1 this last summer. The crap has hit the fan. </p>
<p>It’s possible that Joe Pa should have retired years ago. Perhaps he didn’t quite grasp what he heard - or maybe even suffers from hearing issues. I know when I talk to my dad there are things he insists he didn’t hear, even though everyone else in the room, did. He also may have felt that this was an issue that could be brushed under the rug, or didn’t understand the nature of the crime.</p>
<p>However, without police involvement at the time of the assault, it’s really about he-said, she-said, isn’t it? The sad fact is that much, much more should have been done way back when. And it wasn’t. Perhaps it’s because football is big business and perhaps it was because of embarrassment of the scandal it would bring to what is like a big family.</p>
<p>Families have been known to protect sexual predators - or excuse them. “You don’t understand…it wasn’t like that…so and so would never do that…yada yada yada.”</p>
<p>A person’s character and personality may seem perfect on the exterior and they are still capable of gross and heinous crimes. See Ted Bundy, and others. </p>
<p>Sandusky may have used the charity as a hunting grounds for finding his prey. Or maybe he is just totally misunderstood, and he will be exonerated. Casey Anthony was just exonerated based on circumstantial reasons, right?</p>
<p>I mean, doesn’t every adult male want to horse around naked in the shower with a young, fatherless boy or one from a broken home? He just appears to be a piece of crap, to me. </p>
<p>His 2 second pause on that interview with Bob Costas was telling and he probably shouldn’t have consented to speak out loud. I am sure his lawyer has silenced him, at this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I won’t say that Sandusky is someone I would trust nor is he somebody who I think will win his case here. But unlike many of the posters, I’m not convicting him prior to the evidence actually being presented. </p>
<p>I hope that if Sandusky commited these acts, he receives the punishment he deserves. But I also hope that if he has been accused falsely, that individual/those individuals are punished adequately.</p>
<p>He admitted to horseplay in the showers with this individual kid. </p>
<p>Can’t think of any compelling reason why a coach would shower with a kid late at night by himself. Perhaps there is one. We will see. </p>
<p>But yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. Even Casey Anthony is innocent of the crime of murdering her daughter, according to the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the St. Louis area, a young mom just admitted to killing her 13-month old son. The next day she entered a not-guilty plea.</p>
<p>Like I said, I’ll wait until the facts come out in court and go from there.</p>
<p>He admitted it, he said there genitals probably touched, he was seen laying a bench prone with a little boy, he called one of his victims over 100 times</p>
<p>Guess some people need video tape of sexual assualt to believe it</p>
<p>As for admitting, then pleading innocent, that’s typical</p>
<p>CNN printed excerpts from his book, it was kind of creepy, it was mostly about boys he loved and cared about over the years, how he was immature and how he was most happy when he was with his boys</p>
<p>Hops_Scout-He did the minimum legally required of him, Showed that he was a stunning hypocrite, and allowed a child rapist to continue to operate. And Sandusky was using his football players from his program to legitimize the charity he set up as a hunting ground for himself. He closed his eyes to evil, and chose the safe course. Turns out that it was not that safe after all.</p>
<p>Hops scout, can you explain thhe over one hundred phone calls to one of victims? that’s a fact. Why would he call a teenage boy over 100 times?</p>
<p>Hops, yes, he did his job – the minimum legally required of him. A better man would have done more IMO. There was nothing to stop him. He just didn’t bother.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Samurai, no doubt. But, incredibly, Costas said that it was the attorney’s idea to do the interview.</p>
<p>Finally, an objective, well-reasoned article (ESPN) cautioning people to withhold judgement until more of the facts are known. It compares this case to the Duke lacrosse debacle. </p>
<p>“What the stories share, though, is a strikingly similar sort of venal public response, a certain “they’re all guilty as sin” quality that permeates so much of the national conversation. If nothing else, recent history suggests that at least a modicum of restraint today might prove wise later on. Here’s hoping it doesn’t get lost in all the shouting.”</p>
<p>[Echoes</a> of Duke lacrosse in rush to judgment about Penn State scandal? - ESPN](<a href=“Echoes of Duke lacrosse in rush to judgment about Penn State scandal? - ESPN”>Echoes of Duke lacrosse in rush to judgment about Penn State scandal? - ESPN)</p>
<p>“It is terrifyingly obvious that many people are operating off shards of factoids and little else, and drawing broad conclusions based upon those shards, and generally not knowing very much with absolute certainty, because the case so far doesn’t allow for that.”</p>
<p>It is terrifyingly obvious that many people are operating off shards of factoids and little else, and drawing broad conclusions based upon those shards, and generally not knowing very much with absolute certainty, because the case so far doesn’t allow for that.</p>
<p>the grand jury testimony is public- do you call witness testimony to the grand jury by people who have much to lose and nothing to gain " shards of factoids"?</p>
<p>“the grand jury testimony is public- do you call witness testimony to the grand jury by people who have much to lose and nothing to gain " shards of factoids”?"</p>
<p>Yes, because much of the story as it pertains to Paterno and the university officials is left out. Read the article.</p>
<p>ek- by its nature a GJ proceeding is made up of shards of factoids from one side.</p>
<p>The purpose of a GJ is simply to determine if there are enough questions or guilt to proceed to a trial. It is completely one-sided (the prosecutors). It is only when this case goes to trial will you finally hear Sandusky’s side. In fact, you may never actually hear Sandusky’s side if he pleads guilty, which is what Madoff did so he could avoid having to go to trial and avoid having to divulge details.</p>
<p>100 phone calls, 100 to a minor childs house, this is a fact, not rumor, not disputed, not innuendo, it’s a fact</p>
<p>I would like someone to try and explain why Sandusky called his victim over 100 times</p>
<p>Tom, hops. Anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know the relationship of the families? Do you know what was said in these phone calls? The timeline?</p>
<p>Things I don’t know, things I won’t look up because it’s not my job. I’ll let the case play out in the court of law and only when he is convicted will I cast stones.</p>
<p>Samurai:</p>
<p>First of all, I hope that all is well with you and yours.</p>
<p>Second, Casey Anthony is “not guilty” under the law which is a far cry from innocent in reality. Actually, I did not follow that case, but am just pointing out that an acquittal means that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, not that the defendant is innocent.</p>
<p>Obviously, at this point we only know what is in the grand jury report, so we need to wait until we hear from McQueary and Paterno, particularly since there are reports that McQueary may have done much more than what seems to be in the GJR. </p>
<p>I am also intrigued that most people are absolutely certain they would have reacted differently than McQueary or Paterno. In the article I referenced in my previous comment, the author references another ESPN article where an FBI profiler and expert in child abuse cases disputes the notion that the overwhelming majority of people would have reacted any differently:</p>
<p>"In the grand jury report, McQueary was described as “distraught.” But until we hear from him, we’ll never know what he was thinking, feeling or experiencing at that moment. There are few people in the world who can relate. Few who can truly say they know how they’d respond. Jane Turner is one of them. For 25 years she worked for the FBI as a psychological profiler and an expert in child crimes. She would get child molesters to crack and confess. Law enforcement agencies would bring her in to teach investigators criminal profiling, crime scene assessment, the profiling of sexual offenders and how to interview child victims. While it isn’t known what happened in the shower between McQueary and Sandusky, Turner said that given her expertise it would have been “100 percent normal” for McQueary to freeze, panic and shut down after seeing what he said he saw.</p>
<p>Turner said most adults have never even seen a photo of a man having sexual relations with a young boy, much less witnessed it. Further complicating things, Turner said, was the fact that Sandusky was seen as a role model in the community and someone McQueary had known nearly his entire life.</p>
<p>You’re trying to comprehend something your brain can’t handle," Turner said. “You can’t rationalize it. Compute it. Handle it. Most people turn around and walk away. And then they try to figure out, ‘Oh my God. What the hell did I just see?’ The people who say they would go in there and break it up? They’re wrong. Nine times out of 10, that’s just not how the human brain works.”</p>
<p>Besides rushing to judgement without all the facts, it is extremely annoying having to hear so many people self-righteously condemning the Penn State participants, who they have concluded are morally inferior to them. Listening to this is like the sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard.</p>
<p>100 plus phone calls…With only 4 return calls,…thats kinda stalkingesque whtether some are willing to admit it nor not</p>
<p>the Penn state staff who did nothing and covered up are morally inferior</p>
<p>I have stepped in and said something…often…and the people I know would as well</p>
<p>I have nevr just turned a blind eye except when it happened to em</p>