<p>I once knew a man who’d served time for sexual abuse of children. (I didn’t know this about him until right before he was taken to Atascadero State Hospital where he spent the rest of his life.) Shortly before he was taken into custody, my (brave) neighbor had a conversation with him. He told her that he understood that sexual contact with children was illegal and therefore to be hidden, but he didn’t believe it was wrong. He told her that young girls were sexually attracted to him, and that they “wanted” contact with him. He was in violation of numerous terms of his parole when he was taken back in. We neighbors had NO idea about his history; he was hiding right there in plain sight, seeming to be just a friendly older man.</p>
<p>You’re right, there is no comparison. Penn State officials turned a blind eye to a pedophile raping young boys in their showers for years and years, but no one ever called one of the victims a liar. Of couse, there’s always the possibility that NO ONE at PSU knew anything, so there’s no need for any contrition, which seems to be PSU’s approach of choice. Like if they act contrite, it’s admitting to some sort of guilt.</p>
<p>I agree with that. PSU, if the allegations are true, acted in a criminal manner by aiding in the victimization of children. Much worse than expressing a ignorant and hurtful viewpoint.</p>
<p>I think that what Boeheim said was wrongheaded, but I understand why he said it and I don’t think he needs to be crucified for it. Bobby Davis has accepted the apology for remarks that were clearly directed toward him personally, not to abuse victims in general. Boeheim obviously knew the accuser, Bobby Davis, and has known him as a friend/employee/mentee of Fine’s for years. He may have also known that Bobby Davis has asked Bernie Fine for substantial sums of money in the past and that Davis made these accusations before when they were unsubstantiated. In short, his initial reaction when it was only Bobby Davis and his relative coming forward via the news outlets, on the heels of Penn State’s story, was a very human one…it’s only unfortunate that he had a microphone in front of him that day! </p>
<p>Boeheim always said that if something else came to light then he would adjust his position and that’s exactly what he did when the audiotape was released. ESPN and the Syracuse paper witheld that information for 8 years and I don’t understand why they couldn’t substantiate it before now. Pretty sure that Jim Boeheim would have recognized Mrs. Fine’s voice in 2003 and it may have been a very different outcome if SU had been given an opportunity to listen to the tape as part of their investigation. Not to blame the victim, it’s unfortunate that Mr. Davis gave it only to media outlets and not to SU or the Syracuse police.</p>
<p>Grcxx3: I agree with you, too little too late. Especially after the second incident that got him into more hot water. In his first post game news conference after the tapes came too light, he was roundly criticized for taking the situations too lightly. Actually starting out with a joke: </p>
<p>This is the first time Ive been in the press room where theres more people here than at the game, he quipped. Is there something special going on tonight?</p>
<p>So this is his third swing at this. With ESPN’s involvement, and Bernie Fine being an assistant right up to the end, I get a feeling there is way more to the Syracuse situation than meets the eye, and it may end up worse than PSU. Time will tell</p>
<p>I find Sandusky incredibly creepy. My skin crawls when I hear his voice and I cannot bear to look directly at him on screen. Is this only because I’ve read the grand jury report, or would he seem creepy to someone with no prior suspicions?</p>
<p>No one. And I didn’t think he was innocent before he spoke. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly to some, but obviously not to everyone.</p>
<p>Its interesting in these cases that at least one of them had a kid who was being forced or encouraged by his mom (I think) to accompany Sandusky. I need to re-read that part, but obviously if a relationship doesn’t seem completely normal and the kid is protesting, maybe its time to give up the free babysitter. I’ll wager that at least a couple of moms or dads said “no” to some of these “opportunities” for their boys. It would have been difficult, but I’m betting that some did say no.</p>
<p>I just caught this briefly on Today, but it seems that Sandusky invited several of the boys named in the grand jury report over to his house for a dinner party – AFTER he knew that the grand jury was investigating. According to the legal expert, this could be construed as witness tampering.</p>
<p>I also didn’t realize until today that in the second interview, the attorney actually had to intervene to tell Sandusky to say that he’s not sexually attracted to boys.</p>
<p>Even though Sandusky makes my skin crawl, I do believe that everyone deserves competent legal counsel. Shouldn’t his lawyer be smart enough to realize that this guy does not come off well, and he is not doing himself any good by giving interviews? Bob Costas (who did a great job, I thought) looked like he was finding Sandusky completely repulsive. In both interviews, he was not able to answer the very simple question of whether or not he was sexually attracted to young boys. It was painful to watch him struggle with it - twice! How could any minimally competent attorney allow this to happen a second time?</p>
<p>Let’s remember, the atty isn’t in charge. He is hired by the client. Client is boss, atty is hired help. Although most recommend following atty’s advice…</p>
<p>Amendola isn’t off the hook. The reports I read said that he actually advised Sandusky to do at least the first interview, the one where, as some wag quipped, it looked like Costas’s skin was trying to crawl off him and hide.</p>
<p>Strange- I was not aware that cancer patients may be treated with chemo and radiation EVERY DAY.
I thought it was never so frequent???</p>
<p>Nonetheless, this was a pretty tight little group. It is not unusual, generally, in most communities to have such power groups.</p>
<p>This story, IMO, only gives JP more motivation to keep mum, but it does not reveal exactly what JP knew when, or what he did or did not do with that knowledge.</p>
<p>You know, maybe Sandusky thinks he is supposed to answer “Are you attracted to children?” with “Well… I am ATTRACTED to children sexually, but I have never actually acted on that.”
Ya know, to be an honest injun…</p>
<p>Is it possible, all you shrinks out there, that he dissociates when he is doing sexual things with the kids, such that he does not remember, is not conscious of his actions???</p>
<p>I ask this because my impression of him is that he is a little off.</p>
<p>No it’s not possible that he does not remember. It is possible he calls it something else, clearly not sexual abuse in his mind, and he believes that. while he may have a very disturbed, he also is dumb as a fox. He knew how to get kids to be afraid to report him, how to get PSU to either deny, ignore, minimize etc. IMHO, he’s a sociopath along with a pedophile, who upon being arrested, presents himself as a victim. Classic sociopath behavior. He’s done nothing wrong and how could everyone misconstrue his goodness???</p>
<p>So glad to see all eight victims will testify. Strength in numbers for these young men, hope they get to see justice served, to see themselves heard and believed.</p>
<p>So they found the man who was the boy the assistant coach saw allegedly being raped, then. If he testifies he was raped, and the coach testifies he was raped, Sandusky will be lucky to reach prison without being lynched.</p>
<p>"Let’s remember, the atty isn’t in charge. He is hired by the client. Client is boss, atty is hired help. Although most recommend following atty’s advice… "</p>
<p>If the client doesn’t follow the attorney’s advice, the attorney should resign.</p>