<p>Ga2012- there are so many reasons that may have been done it does not make sense to speculate.</p>
<p>Right.
Paterno claims not to have known about the 1998 incident.
And Paterno just let go of his hugely successful assistant coach right after, who he must have been incredibly close to after 30 years together…for reasons that we will never know.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen anybody claim that Sandusky is innocent. What I’ve seen is individuals (including myself) who choose to let ALL of the facts come out before we destroy somebody. </p>
<p>Just the other day there were people on here ready to hang Coach Fine at Syracuse. That case has seemed to quiet down quite a bit as more and more it appears it’s not true. </p>
<p>There are too many examples of individuals who have been convicted in the court of public opinion to be found not guilty or innocent of the charges. </p>
<p>Let the system work.</p>
<p>That is not true- I believe we will end up knowing when the final story is told. Again I ask what does this rush to judgment help?</p>
<p>Sandusky will have a trial. So will Schultz and Curley so all of them will be able to get their side out. McQuery will be a witness so his story will come out. Both Paterno and Spanier are being tarred here and just maybe both are guilty as sin but just as possible maybe they did what a prudent person would have done with the information they had.
It has been mentioned here that Spanier and Paterno were not on the same side on a big issue- Paterno coaching- so why would they both have acted in the same manner and cover this up? Why is it not possible that they had information or were kept from information that makes their actions reasonable?</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer, but having just done a living trust I believe you don’t need to sell your house to your spouse for $1 if you have lung cancer or any serious illness (at 84, you could go at anytime). You can put your house and other assets into a living trust to avoid probate. I can’t imagine why the wife wouldn’t already be on the title.</p>
<p>To me, it seems highly unlikely that Sandusky’s sickness wasn’t whispered about for years and years, and just as unlikely that Paterno never heard those whispers.</p>
<p>Sandusky was a man who apparently was so confident, so brazen, that he brought young boys to COMMUNAL showers where anyone could walk in. Think about that; how sure he must have been that no one would turn him in, to bring young boys to communal showers and have sex with them. And nothing and no one ever stopped him from doing it again and again. </p>
<p>That is what is so outrageous.</p>
<p>It takes a village…</p>
<p>It appears Sandusky was taking the children to the facility at night when he thought no one would be there. It is possible that since the janitor did not report what he saw and if McQuery did not walk in on him that no one from Penn St would have even known he was using the showers. You make it sound like he was using the showers and people from Penn State were just walking in and out</p>
<p>They were. We know of only 2.</p>
<p>How do you know they were? And if so who were they? If they saw something should we attempt to identify them and charge them for failure to report?</p>
<p>What do you mean who were they? We know of McCreary and the janitor. How on earth does a pedophile take a kid to a university shower on a Friday night and have sex with him out in the open? And get away with it, for years and years.</p>
<p>And the janitors admitted fearing for their jobs. Janitors are there at night.</p>
<p>Read my post again- Sandusky may have felt that no one was in the facility late at night. He may have felt that the janitorial staff or anyone in the building would not walk into the shower. Yes he was brazen and clearly his compulsion lead him to take risky chances in terms of getting caught. But you have no knowledge of how often he used the showers, how often he assaulted children there or who from Penn St was around when he did anything except for the two incidents.</p>
<p>How can you be sure he was so brazen that no one would turn him in and it was not that he just felt no one would catch him?</p>
<p>Because he did get caught and no one turned him in.</p>
<p>goingmyway, you’re right to be outraged by this whole discussion, but we will have to learn more over time. I hope there were records that showed who was on campus and who was with Sandusky and when, but even that will need to be researched. by PSU? by the charity? by calendars kept by the mothers even? </p>
<p>Right now, you’re only speculating. You can conjecture all you want, but at some point the facts will come out and we shall see.</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>Is there anything new on this issue or are folks still going round and round about the same issues?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do know this beyond all doubt: Joe Paterno did not use his considerable power to make sure that a predator was arrested. </p>
<p>There’s something about this “full story” line of reasoning that bothers me. It is true that there are things we don’t know (although I find it hard to believe there are people who still believe this flat-out just never happened). For now, we can either give the benefit of the doubt to children who, it appears, were abused for many years – OR we can give the benefit of the doubt to powerful men who, it appears, turned a blind eye to childrens’ safety and protected a predator. And please note that no one at Penn State has said that Jerry wasn’t a predator. They’re just trying to retroactively cover their rear ends as to whether they followed the proper procedure. Again, a little bit like Eichmann.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow… more news you know that everybody else doesn’t. I didn’t realize Joe Paterno was a law enforcement officer with the power to arrest people.</p>
<p>Jym, we’re going round and round. </p>
<p>My point was that, yes, none of us can be sure what happened. But it’s not so bad to use this forum as a venting place for our outrage at what was done to these kids.</p>
<p>jym,
There is some going round and round, but there is also some reporting of new media accounts and a few new facts and opinions.
However, the going round and round is important to keeping straight what is speculation and what is fact and what is coming from witnesses. </p>
<p>This hashing out and back and forth is how humans work together to make our society function with norms and rules and consequences.</p>