<p>
</p>
<p>He’s never been identified. Obviously, Sandusky isn’t talking.</p>
<p>^^^I think a credible eye witness and multiple corroborating victims with their own experience is very good evidence.</p>
<p>Not to speak ill of the dead so I’ll simply quote,…
From Joe Paterno’s last interview with the Washington Post,
“You know, he didn’t want to get specific,” Paterno said. “And to be frank with you, I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. </p>
<p>[Joe</a> Paterno’s first interview since the Penn State-Sandusky scandal - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html]Joe”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html)</p>
<p>Did he really NOT understand what McQueary was telling him?</p>
<p>“he “made sure he knew” it was sexual.”</p>
<p>(As a lifelong Catholic, he didn’t know what Catholics were buzzing about?)</p>
<p>Apparently Sandusky was offered a plea deal last week, before the trial began, and refused it. The theory being that at his age, any sentence is basically a life sentence. Additionally, Sandusky (assuming the allegations are true, and it is nearly impossible not to believe that) is such a profoundly disturbed sociopath/pedophile that he really believes he hasn’t done a thing wrong. He isn’t thinking he’s getting away with it, he’s thinking nobody cares because he’s not doing something bad. </p>
<p>I’ve posted this before, but this whole horrifying mess is a cautionary tale for everyone. Child abuse advocates have told us for decades what grooming looks like, where pedophiles turn up, who and how enables the opportunities, and how children are very aware that they will not be believed if they overcome their terror and denial and TELL. But society doesn’t want to believe it happens. We want to all believe we would “know”, that we would do something, that we would intervene and the statistics simply don’t support the notion that it happens that way. </p>
<p>So, instead, we need safeguards like those annoying background checks your church wants, that irritating extra tent for all adults Scouts want, the myriad of inflexible “I can’t hug my students or take them to the bathroom” rules we gripe about. We pay daycare workers less than fast food people and wonder why we get uneven quality of care and potential disasters. We allow unscreened and untrained volunteers in every door because we don’t want to pay for program staff, or pay for training and oversight staff. We understaff CYS in virtually every state and wonder why the caseworkers can’t catch every demented adult who intersects a child. We excoriate witnesses, drag them through the mud over their lapses or inaction, and wonder why people are reluctant to come forward. </p>
<p>I was at a convenience store today in town, and someone asked the clerk to turn off the TV. And someone asked everyone to pray for the victims, and we handed around tissues, and tried to get on with the day. As if.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The threshold for molestation of a child is not RAPE. The prosecution absolutely does not have to prove that penetration occurred. The burden of proof falls far, far below that AS IT SHOULD.</p>
<p>People need to prepare for the very real possibility that Sandusky will be acquitted. We have already seen several high profile defendants who seemed to be obviously guilty (including a local one just recently) get off with less than most people think just. I would have zero surprise if someone who is emblematic of Happy Valley, who served at the right hand of “God”, and who furthered Penn States’ position as a football (translation “this is our life”) powerhouse gets acquitted even if Jesus himself gets on the stand. Zero, zip, zed.</p>
<p>Greenbutton, that was one of the most eloquent posts I have read here. You really hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>I would like to reiterate Nrdsb4’s last post. Molestation is not synonymous with intercourse. It does not need to be proven that penetration occurred in order to find someone guilty of sexual abuse. Let’s not underestimate the suffering and trauma that is the result of all forms of child exploitation.</p>
<p>cpt you said “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>Spanier, Curley and Schultz did not have to “face” that Sandusky was raping or otherwise sexually assaulting children. You sound too sympathetic to them imho. They needed to report what McQueary observed. before you defend that McQueary was vague, even if by some bizarre chance they didn’t “get” what McQueary saw, then they needed to ask sufficient questions so that they had the full picture. (this type of questioning and investigation goes on at most corporations/organizations along with human resources/legal counsel for much lesser workplace behaviors) They needed to report suspicion based on that and the prior event. These were the senior leaders of Penn State, there is no excuse for their inability to face anything. This implies they were merely uncomfortable with such a delicate and messy issue, poor guys. (sarcasm) They opted to protect Sandusky, sadly and foolishly probably thinking they were protecting Penn State.</p>
<p>And protect themselves, or so they thought. There was a large and ropey network of adults working in tandem with a pervert. None of whom were terribly interested in protecting children. Only their own asses. And that includes the administration at the high school where the boy tried to report his abuser. Those adults were bound, not only by the laws of simple human decency by by the law of mandated reporting. They did nothing. In fact, they did worse than that. They tried to talk the boy and his mom out of reporting Sandusky. And then went on to publicly humiliate and ostracize the boy because he had dared to tarnish the reputation of Sandusky.</p>
<p>It was the boys MOM that reported Sandusky to the authorities, not the high school administration. They should be held accountable, as well.</p>
<p>absolutely, I want to know if that guidance counselor still has her job? as I had said earlier s/he should be charged.</p>
<p>I said months ago, that the mother of this boy had to wage a battle to simply protect her boy. and one of the shameful aspects of this is that Sandusky likely chose these boys because he knew they were “troubled” therefore he likely imagined if they “talked” he could cite their troubled backgrounds and call them liars. but his sociopathy never let him realize how it would all shake out one day and they would all “talk” in court together.</p>
<p>greenbutton–great post. It is amazing that the guidance counselor missed Sandusky’s “pillar of society” pedophile profile and actually used that to try to get victim 1 to back down. </p>
<p>when my youngest was in kindergarten his 50 yr old female teacher had her new 65 yr old boyfriend, (former principal at another school) in the classroom every day. when I learned of this upon attending a classroom party, it made me uncomfortable enough to ask a question or two of my son’s principal. to me it just seemed odd that this retired principal would want to be in a kindergarten classroom every single school day. While there was never an issue, I felt better expressing my concern as a parent and let the principal know it needed to be monitored and that I for one would be watching when I could. Others thought this was so sweet of him, but it never made sense to me and parents need to watch for adults who are “too good to be true”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt it. News outlets reported that the testimony of the younger of the two victims who testified yesterday had many of jurors literally in tears. </p>
<p>When the prosecution has the jury actually weeping in the jury box over the plight of the victims, that just can’t be good news for the defendant.</p>
<p>
We can only hope, but I lost faith in the justice system 17 years ago. Nothing will surprise me here.</p>
<p>I was how shall I say it, almost molested bymy step father. He tried. A touch there. A hand there. A put my hand near his underpants. At the time it was something not on my radar. I knew about where babies came from, i knew about the mechanics of it, but it was all sort of alien, as I think it is for most kids. Anyway, he made approaches, but I instinctually pulled away, and he didn’t pursue it often, but enough were i have definite memories and feel a discomfort when in think about it. Forty years later there is this tug t my heart when I hear the testimony of these now young men.</p>
<p>Did I ever tell my mom? No I did not. Should I have? Yes. But in my Childs brain i didn’t want to create more angst in the family and I stopped further attempts. </p>
<p>The men who stood by Sandusky are pathetic. </p>
<p>The men who are now sharing their stories are brave indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the opposite will hold–Sandusky is making the whole PSU institution and administration look shameful, got Joe Paterno fired and ruined what little time Coach had left on earth. They would be more likely to hang him…</p>
<p>I’m telling you as a PSU alumni and PA resident, I would be beyond shocked if the jury had any protective feelings toward Sandusky. I haven’t heard one person express any feelings of Penn State protectiveness toward him. Not one. As elle said, they’d be more likely to hang him.</p>
<p>I agree with SansSerif and ellemenope I’m an alum, a PA resident, my daughter is a PSU junior. There is no Penn State protectiveness toward him. He is universally loathed.</p>
<p>On the idea of brains not going there . . .</p>
<p>I was proud of Chris Matthews last night for calling a spade a spade. He gave a warning that what he was about to say was graphic and might not be appropriate for children or some audiences, then he just said it outright. His explanation was that too often people use the euphemisms “horseplay” “inappropriate contact” or “molestation” when they mean rape, sodomy and forced oral sex. He believes that people hide behind the drawing room appropriate terms to avoid admitting what was really going on. It allows people to downplay the activities and the implications. The chain of command is trying to use the “my brain didn’t go there” defense and hoping that the casual sound of “horseplay” will keep people from pinning them down on their obligation to intervene and take serious action.</p>
<p>Mini, there is absolutely no way to confirm what McQ precisely said to Paterno. Paterno was a physically sick (close to dying) old man, and I do believe that he mentally could not “go there” to actual rape. Frankly, I find it difficult too, and I am not his age. </p>
<p>There are people who are overly touchy, horse play, etc and who would never rape someone. They are still crossing the boundaries of appropriateness and personal boundaries. But they are not rapists. They truly may not have anything sexual in mind at all either. But the way it is, especially now, one has to be very careful. You do not touch other people’s children and you do not put yourself in a situation where you could have been molesting them, ie alone… You don’t shower with them, you don’t share a room, much less a bed with them. A whole set of rules needs to be drawn up for those who work with children.</p>
<p>I work with kids on a volunteer basis, and had to go through a training session/exam on appropriate behavior and things never to do. The guidelines were still too vague, and many organizations do not enforce them. Some flagrently disobey them to a point where the specifically do things that are highlighted as “no nos”. The first thing I was asked to do after completing my training was to give out candy/favors to children which is something specifically on the forbidden list. I thought they were testing me. Nope. </p>
<p>For years, parents and people have been aware and alert about young girls being abused by men. I don’t think the thought-ways were made for other forms of abuse, such as boys being sexually abused and molested by men and/or women. All of this is coming public now. </p>
<p>I think Sandusky is hoping that the life records of his victims and that they possibly can monetarily benefit from their stories, vs his standing in the community would come to an aquittal for him. At least one of his accusers is a convicted felon, for example. And, yes, that can make a difference to people on the jury.It doesn’t help either that such testimony as been recanted before; the Michael Jackson case is a high profile one that comes to mind. The jurors are mostly Penn State associated. I already see signs of problems–one was actually openly seen reading the grand jury transcripts—is that even allowed? All he needs is a hung jury. Edwards is in the clear now from that. </p>
<p>I personally hope that Sandusky is convicted. It makes no sense that that so many come up with the same stories. That he has repeatedly been warned and sanctioned for his behavior which clearly made people uncomfortable even when they could not, would not “go there”, and he continued behaving the way he did, makes it very clear that he isn’t going to be curbed and needs to be put away so not to violate others, children, in particular. It appears there is not stopping this kind of a predator.</p>
<p>I cannot imagine that his wife knew he was raping children and did not put a full stop to it Or his colleagues. Do any of you truly believe that a number of people, his wife, his colleagues knew he was outright physically raping children and just ignored it? Or do you think they thought he was just over the line in touchy type behavior?</p>
<p>Nrdsb, I understand that the threshhold for molestation is not rape, but I do not know what the various threshholds are and the differences. All of this will have to be made very clear to the jurors. It is important that this is handled according to the law since any breach is likely to have the whole thing reversed upon appeal even if the jurors are convinced. </p>
<p>I am wondering what has to be proven, what can legitimately proven (not hype but truly proven beyond reasonable doubt) in this case to put Sandusky away. More importantly, what did Penn State know and did they know enough that they legally should have done more? Did officials do wrong in not criminally pursuing the case. The one guy there is effectively the head of PSU police. If there were things that he did not pursue because he did not want to “disrespect” Sandusky when by the law he should have, he is guilty of crime too. It is a foregone conclusion that Sandusky is a pervert who crossed personal boundaries with boys. He is mentally ill and evil. But what about those who had evidence that he was over the line and who did not stomp on him? This is where the Catholic Church has been hit hard in suits. There were officials who fully knew that those priests were molesting kids’ some of the priests outright admitted it, and yet, they were given more opportunity to continue their crimes. Those officials should have been criminally charged as well.</p>
<p>At very least, if a suspicion like this is even raised, without sufficient proof to take it to court, the person needs to be told and for the safety of both that person as well as possible legions of children, that person has to be put in a job away from kids and has to stay away from anything that even looks compromising or possible for child abusing. I can tell you, even as an older woman with many kids, I am being very careful these days, to some detriment to the kids, but to contribute to the protection of many more, and I am telling my kids this as well.</p>