<p>
</p>
<p>And if by some chance he is guilty, there is a deep conspiracy.</p>
<p>Where did the “I did not see insertion…” statement come from? I saw a reference to McQuery’s police statement, but I thought that the police were claiming that he never reported to them, while he says that he did. Can anyone clear this up?</p>
<p>Sandusky’s lawyer is now saying that the victims are talking among themselves about how much money they will be able to make. Does he have any evidence of this? If not, then it’s a disgusting thing to say.</p>
<p>I like the victims’ attorney (not sure how many of them he represents) who has been on the news a few times. He seems very honest and trustworthy. I can see why victims of childhood sexual assault would feel comfortable with him. He has made the point (in response to claims that the victims are making up their stories to get money) that some of them do not have the possibility of filing a lawsuit because they are too old.</p>
<p>If Sandusky is guilty, and if McQ really did tell Paterno and others that he saw sexual abuse, then I don’t know how to escape the conclusion that there was a conspiracy to cover it up.</p>
<p>Umm, not seeing insertion- well, there is plenty of sexual abuse that does not include that.</p>
<p>In any of these accounts, has there been any description of the reactions of the boy in the shower, which would be another indication of what type of behavior was occurring? Was he laughing, smiling, happy, playful?</p>
<p>My point is that what was going on as described in DRANOV’s account was NOT a gray matter in terms of legality, the importance of reporting, the liklihood of a sexual nature to the behavior. I
t may call the content of McQueary’s testimony somewhat into question, but it confirms that he was a witness, that he spoke to his father, that he was worried, and was thinking of talking to authorities of some kind. So I do not think it destroys his overall credibility as a witness, and does not particularly weaken the case against Sandusky.
It describes inappropriate behavior, no matter what you call it. And probably illegal behavior between and adult with a minor, since penetration is not required for an act to be sexual.</p>
<p>Does anyone think that DRANOV was right in not reporting this event to the police? It was highly suspect. Has he maybe put himself in jeopardy?</p>
<p>Unless I missed it, I didn’t see this article linked yet: [AP</a> IMPACT: PSU culture explained away Sandusky - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-psu-culture-explained-away-sandusky-080310121.html]AP”>http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-psu-culture-explained-away-sandusky-080310121.html)
Pretty nauseating.</p>
<p>Of course Amendola is insisting at this point that he’s not going to plead. He is trying to convey an impression of strength, and to say that they’re even entertaining the possibility of a deal would undercut that impression. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen.</p>
<p>From audiophile’s link:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole place is rotten, through and through.</p>
<p>
No, because he wouldn’t be a required reporter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here it is in black and white – they saw themselves as being above the law.</p>
<p>The hubris is breathtaking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing to stop him from reporting, however. Anyone may report.</p>
<p>Sure, he could have called the police. But if what has been reported as his version of the story is true, it’s not so clear that anything criminal was happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be “clear.” That’s what investigations are for. Personally, if I’m concerned there is any chance at all at children being abused, it’s best to err on the side of caution. Certainly one could notify CPS of a concern-it can even be done anonymously. You don’t have to have incontrovertible evidence, merely a concern or a suspicion of a child being hurt in some way.</p>
<p>I guess it would fall under “moral obligation” for a wise person to do SOMEthing about such suspect behavior… back to a much older discussion on this thread.</p>
<p>Does a jury’s opinion of a witness’s credibility (here I am thinking of DRANOV) change based on whether they consider them MORAL?</p>
<p>At the end of the conversation, Dranov knew that McQueary was going to report the incident to his boss, Paterno. We have no reason to think that Dranov knew about any other allegations against Sandusky at all at that point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly happens. Think of all the rape trials which get sidetracked off actual evidence by a defense attorney’s attempt to paint the victim as being promiscuous, bringing it on themselves by their clothing or other factors suggesting immorality, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it seems it was a series of buck passing with the belief that someone else would take care of it. Which may have been very unfortunate for boys who became acquainted with S. after 2002.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So many different and conflicting info. According to the article in pennlive, the following was reported, but Spanier is not charged with anything. Or maybe they might go after him if they can make it stick with Shultz and Curley or if Shulz and Curley point fingers further up. It seems like they all knew that it was something to follow up on, but in the end the police was not told somehow. We still should hear from McQueary’s father though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“His hand-written statement to police says, “I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring.” He says the whole incident lasted about a minute.”</p>
<p>I don’t think the first sentence should be considered without the second. Imagine walking in. This is exactly what I would suppose someone who walked in on the act would say.</p>
<p>If i had heard a about the incident in the shower, and even though no legal charges were filed, I would, as a sensible, caring, and reasonable adult would have at the very least kept a very close eye on the accused, and it would have totally creeped my out having heard from a credible witness, and at the time, they had no reason to think mcqueary was making the story up. It would have creeped me out to see a man hanging solo with a variety of young boys, knowing he had slumber parties, knowing he gave them money and gifts, and i couldn’t have helped but go back to the shower incident.</p>
<p>I would have worried about the boy…
and tried to find at least an anonymous way to get an investigation going somewhere, somehow.
Even without a conspiracy or a cover-up or a willful blindness, it is hard to be a whistle-blower, to express publicly doubts and suspicions about heroes and saints.</p>
<p>I always thought it was suspicion of abuse that was mandated to be reported…not verified abuse. but I guess since the boys in question were not patients of Dranov he was not required to report. as a mental health professional this would have been something in his position, I would have felt I needed to report, and if one didn’t report but then saw nothing happened to Sandusky, perhaps that would be another opportunity to do so. </p>
<p>old question, has it been answered why Sandusky “retired”? seems relevant to what people knew back after the 1998 incident.</p>