<p>I got the sense from the local news reports that McQueary was a very effective witness, with real presence and charisma. There has always been a heap of questions about McQueary’s actions and testimony, but we know the grand jury/prosecutors believed him 100%. I think in the public trial we are seeing why. He comes across as a strong, principled, flawed human being who is telling the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that is nothing more than wishful thinking.</p>
<p>To say in 2012 the incident occurred in 2002 instead of 2001 is understandable imo. It’s a date, over 10 years later. He was clear on all details he witnessed.</p>
<p>We’ll never know why some people acted (or didn’t act) the way they did but two things stick in my mind. First, State College is an isolated place and essentially a “company town” beholden to no one but itself and as the largest employer, it (PSU)carries clout. Could the insular nature of the community have contributed to those in charge turning a blind eye to the abuse? Could it have happening in a large city where there were other universities and other employers? Possibly but I don’t think it’s as likely.
Secondly and this is more of a nuanced view of football and the hiring process for coaches but I believe that knowledge of Sandusky’s predilections were well known. Penn State under Paterno and Sandusky won two national championships. Usually ( read almost always) being the defensive or offensive coordinator on a team that wins a national championship is a ticket to a head coaching job in college, even a Division 1AA team. To win two would assure him of a great opportunity. Yet, Sandusky never was offered a head coaching job. Why? Could it be that when a university did their due diligence, there were enough rumors or innuendo to make a team back off? It is truly sad that enough people in positions of authority turned a blind eye to what was going on. Some did what was “legally required” of them but that is the bare minimum and well below what we’d want others to do if it was relative of ours who was being abused…</p>
<p>"But he also said clearly to Paterno that what he saw was sexually explicit. That part wasn’t vague at all.</p>
<p>"“I made sure he knew it was sexual and it was wrong,” he said. </p>
<p>So it probably went something like, Joe - I saw - with my own eyes, S having sex in the shower with X." It probably didn’t go, “Joe, I saw S put his Y into X’s Z”. And I expect Joe didn’t need to hear anymore, because he already knew all about S, and had for years.</p>
<p>^ Sounds right to me, mini, except my guess is McQueary would have addressed JoePa as “Coach” and not as “Joe.” It’s at once a term of endearment and of respect.</p>
<p>I just hope this jury does the right thing. Everything at this point is pointing towards a conviction, but I’m still fearful that the jury will do something stupid.</p>
<p>I don’t remember what Paterno said was told to him, which McQ substantiated. How specific he was, the exact words, one can only speculate. </p>
<p>I have a very hard time believing that these people just dismissed someone seeing what McQ says he made clear he saw. That would have crossed too many lines. THat he was showering naked with a kid is enough for him to be hauled in there. More than inappropriate.</p>
<p>As for Penn State being too insular, just this past week the NYT magazine came out with the stories of abuse and molestation at a top NYC prep school, Horace Mann. Some discussion on the boards here about that. When you look at the abuse cases with priests, it was not just the remote ones where these issues arose, but everywhere. And to think this is all in the past is wishful thinking. It’s happening right now. Some sort of protocol on how to handle this has to be developed to protect further victims. I am more interested in what the internal PSU memos have to say about the situations than the testimonies.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “wishful thinking” on my part regarding McQ. I am not hoping anything on this case other than justice be done. I do believe that Sandusky has a major problem but that the case has to be handled in accordance to the way our law dictates. I think some things were very poorly handled and in a way that bodes ill in precedence for civil rights in the future. IT’s not convict at any cost here in this country.</p>
<p>Am I the only one surprised this went to trial? </p>
<p>In view of the compelling, emotional testimony and extensive allegations of repellent behavior toward children – does anyone believe Sandusky has any chance of acquittal?</p>
<p>no, katliamom, I am suprised it went to trial too, but maybe for different reasons than you…</p>
<p>and no, I do not think he has any chance of acquittal based on what I have read. unless something new surfaces in Sandusky’s favor.</p>
<p>OK, I’ll bite 
Why are you surprised this went to trial?</p>
<p>I think the prior poster was referring to a common belief that Sandusky will not survive to begin his prison sentence. Many thought he would not survive until the trial began.</p>
<p>Of course, it went to trial. Other than Sandusky offing himself, why would it not? No way the DA is going to deal on this case, so there is no percentage on Sandusky pleading guilty. </p>
<p>I think that the reason the prosecutor let loose the grand jury transcripts which she should not have done and this should be severely addressed is because she was afraid that the case would get buried otherwise, but once the press got hold of the situation there is no way it was going to be set aside. The sad thing is that it might have been if something like this were not done, but it wasn’t the right thing either. Anyone who thinks so–I hope you get in a case where the grand jury transcripts ar released on you or a loved one and see how you then feel. </p>
<p>I dont’ think Sandusky is in ill health as Paterno was. This case will go to trial and what comes out of it is really going to hit Penn STate where it hurts. I don’t think Sanduskey has the assets to make that much of a difference to the attorneys of the victims, but the university is a whole other story.</p>
<p>My thought is that I’m surprised Sandusky’s lawyers saw any benefit in having these details unveiled day after day in court and in the media. Could they possibly think he can get off? Wouldn’t it be easier on him if he simply pleaded guilty? I think there’d be less noise about it, and the case would quiet down quicker which would be good for Penn State and probably for Sandusky’s family.</p>
<p>^agree…and perhaps even a way for Sandusky to apologize to these young men and refuse to re victimize these young men.</p>
<p>"Earlier Wednesday, the father of former assistant coach Mike McQueary told the jury details of a phone call he had with his son after the former Penn State quarterback allegedly saw Sandusky abusing a young boy in a locker room shower.
John McQueary told the court he approached former university vice president Gary Schultz about the allegations to follow-up on his son’s report to the university. The elder McQueary said Schultz told him he’d heard “noises” previously about Sandusky misconduct. </p>
<p>“noises” a strange way to put it</p>
<p>Yes, I thought Sandusky would find an untimely end by his own hand, or by that of an outraged parent. Of one of the children.</p>
<p>I think Sandusky got away with it for so long, knowing that people were turning a blind eye to it, that he really thought he could once again get away with it. Think about it. He knew Paterno knew, McQuery knew, Curley knew, who knows how many others knew, and did NOTHING. I think he felt so protected by Penn State that he thought they would once again protect him. And that’s why this travesty is continuing to hurt the victims.</p>
<p>totally agree goingmyway, enabling at it’s very worst</p>
<p>I don’t think he will ever admit to doing this. There is absolutely nothing for him to gain in admitting it. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that all of those people KNEW that he was sexually assaulting children. Their brains just would not go there. They felt that he might be inappropriately "touching’ them, but not going that far. Just a McQ could not spell it out for Paterno, these guys just could not face that he was raping kids. I don’t know if they truly believe it yet. How much of this can truly proven beyond reasonable doubt, I do not know. </p>
<p>What is the standard for reasonable doubt in rape cases when there is no physical evidence? Is the young man who was in the showers, that McQ saw going to testify? Depending on a number of factors, it may not come down to a conviction. I will say that from what I have read about the actual trial so far, it looks very bad for Sandusky and Penn State.</p>
<p>“Just a McQ could not spell it out for Paterno…”</p>
<p>Let’s not perpetuate this myth:</p>
<p>"“I made sure he knew it was sexual and it was wrong,” said McQueary.</p>
<p>What he left to Paterno’s imagination was which appendage and which orifice. McQueary not only said that he told Paterno it was sexual, he "made sure he knew" it was sexual. It wasn’t “showering together” or “washing his back”.</p>