<p>But there is one guy here with a clear track record. One, who, after allegations four years earlier, got rid of his assistant, but allowed him to “hang around” with young boys on his turf. One guy who refused to protect his own players when they received death threats, and who allowed his players to walk to their graduations in bulletproof vests. One guy who got a clear presentation of Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the locker room, knew it for what it was, and then lightened up the story when he moved the information on. One guy who allowed Sandusky to continue use of the locker room for a year after. One guy who made hundreds of thousands if not millions through association with Sandusky’s friends and associates at Second Mile, and never blew the whistle to Second Mile itself (to do so would likely have cost him his investment). </p>
<p>And one guy with the stature to do what needed to be done, and to make it stick. One guy with more information, and more power, than everyone else.</p>
Given that the DA from the earlier case seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth, and a young black male was found deceased near the campus in a place mentioned in some racist “correspondence”, it’s not all that clear to me that there was no physical danger involved.</p>
<p>“Pennsylvania prosecutors may seek to use unaired portions of an NBC News interview with Jerry Sandusky*in November in which the former Penn State defensive coach said, “I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped.””</p>
<p>Wow, just amazing. from post 4454. To me this is a pretty clear admission that Sandusky did seek out “some” young people for sexual needs. It seems what he’s saying is since he actually helped some of the kids without getting his sexual needs met, he should be acknowledged for being a helper. </p>
<p>I think that’s a stretch and you can’t tell me that the reason that McQueary did nothing was because he was afraid for his physical safety! No, no. His fear was for his job.</p>
<p>“I was only following orders,” didn’t work too well as a defense then, and it certainly doesn’t fly now, imo, particularly from a 28 y.o. man. This wasn’t a was-it-or-wasn’t-it- something wrong that he saw, it was blatantly wrong. I don’t give McQueary much credit at all for his initial response. To his credit, he didn’t just ignore what he had seen, but he sure did not take the kind of immediate action he should have taken. It was as if McQueary and Paterno et al were following the Catholic church’s playbook on sexual assault: protect the institution as the primary goal. </p>
<p>I’m guessing that Mrs. Sandusky managed to ignore the revolving door of boys spending time in the basement. Wasn’t there some report that one of his own kids beat feet when Jerry started showering to closely with another kid?</p>
<p>Actually, attorneys CAN generally refuse to represent a client who will not follow attorney’s advice. Our office refused to represent clients who wouldn’t cooperate with us & I know many firms that similarly refuse such representation. Most courts will allow firms to withdraw when their clients won’t cooperate (listen to legal counsel, follow advice and thereby making representing the clients MUCH tougher).</p>
<p>it was discussed that Amendola wanted Sandusky on tape denying any abuse, so it could be used in court as a denial, thereby removing the need to have Sandusky take the stand to make a denial. if that was the original thinking, it appears to have backfired. seems he didn’t understand Sandusky’s sociopathic thinking.</p>
<p>No, let’s get our facts straight. McQueary was born in 1975, so in February, 2001 he would have been 25 or 26–most likely 25, unless his birthday was in January or February. His senior season as a player was 1997, which means if he graduated on time it most likely would have been in 1998. (That means Sandusky would have been the powerful #2 and heir apparent to JoePa, and probably the second-most-revered and admired figure in all of State College after JoePa himself, during the entirety of McQueary’s playing career). McQueary then knocked around professional football unsuccessfully for a couple of years with the Oakland Raiders and in Europe, before returning to Penn State in 2000, hoping to find a job. JoePa apparently took pity on him and offered him a low-paying, entry-level position as a graduate assistant. So in February, 2001, McQueary would have been just over half a year into his first real job—if you can call it that–as a graduate assistant in the Penn State football program, clearly on the bottom rung of the career ladder.</p>
<p>Does all this excuse his failure to do more? No, of course not. His biggest mistake was buying into JoePa’s system of keeping all disciplinary matters internal. But let’s get the facts straight. This was a young, scared, kid just barely out of college, just months into his first entry-level job, and he did what he had always been told to do, report it internally so as to not bring unwanted attention on the Penn State football program; and after he did that, JoePa himself told him he had done exactly the right thing. Are those warped values? Of course they are. But they are exactly the values JoePa taught him, and he learned them well.</p>
<p>According to the grand jury indictment, McQ saw anal sex in the show and conveyed to JoePa “what he had seen”. (at which point JoePa slumped over in his chair). McQ “made sure that he knew” what McQ had seen. At that point, things (including, potentially, the coverup that started at least three years earlier) had the potential to unravel. From there, it seems JoePa “fixed it”. </p>
<p>McQ, like most folks, likely had and still has trouble accepting the possibility (I would say probability, but I understand that others will differ) that JoePa was in the center of a long-term criminal conspiracy (upon the success of which lots of money was riding). Who was he going to tell? The police (whom he had reason to believe PSU had already contacted?) The DA’s office (remember, this is the year of the death threats against PSU players that JoePa remained silent about)? Go to the newspapers?</p>
<p>Regarding that former coach that testified today that it’s normal for coaches to bring young boys into showers – Is that true? It’s normal for middle-aged men to bring 10 year olds into showers? I have no idea as to what’s normal in the college football locker room world, but that sounds a bit icky to me.</p>
<p>Normal and common are two different things. It may be common for it to happen and it may even happen under normal circumstances (no sexual molestation intended or carried out) but I will say this: it is ill advised for any adult to do anything with a child that could be misconstrued. Teachers are not even supposed to go into the bathroom to assist a child without another adult present and without the door open. Any coach who brings a child into a shower is asking for big problems.</p>