<p>Wow, mini - why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think?<br>
geez…</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. It’s absurd to think this wasn’t deliberately ignored by a handful of people. Paterno didn’t keep it to himself; his grand jury testimony said as much. At least Joe Pa had the integrity to admit what McQ told him.</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier, there’s sick scum, and then there’s criminal scum.</p>
<p>“Joe Pa had the integrity to admit what McQ told him.”</p>
<p>If you read the indictment, you quickly find out that’s not what the grand jury believes happened. (And, no, I don’t think it was “deliberately ignored” - more like “criminally covered up”).</p>
<p>My gut tells me sandusky was never going to testify. The defense are saying now they felt they had put-up a good defense and out enough doubt. That was their strategy from the beginning, and I can’t imagine the attorneys wanting to put himmonnthe stand.</p>
<p>^^^^^I never for one moment believed he would testify.</p>
<p>Years ago I went to see a guy who had a lecture program called Child Lures. He said what some previous posters have said: pedophiles are dedicated to what they are doing. They come from all walks of life. Many of them do not believe that what they are doing is wrong; they think love should be experienced by all ( yes, read between the lines on that one). It is a very scary thing.</p>
<p>The defense, IMHO, offered nothing. A statement by the wife that she didn’t hear screams. Wow. Maybe she wasn’t home then. Maybe she’s interested in her husband and her own reputation. She has an obvious interest and juries see that. One witness corroborated all but one detail of McQueary’s testimony: he says McQueary told him a kid was in the shower and was pulled back in by an arm and that he heard flesh slapping together but says McQueary didn’t say he saw actual sex. How is that good for the defense? It at best impeaches details of one incident and doesn’t even begin to address the testimony by actual victims.</p>
<p>The defense was also unable to provide any material impeachment of the actual victims. An allegation of financial interest is hard to take when the matter involves rape of a child. Most people don’t want that known. And then, assuming they sue Sandusky, what exactly could they get? And if they sue the school, that’s a long, long road. And of course, they testified about this years ago, well before any civil lawyers might have been retained.</p>
<p>Not to mention that the doctor who testified regarding what McQueary told him admitted on cross-examination that McQueary was extremely shaken and upset when he told him what he did. And that McQueary had previously explained that he didn’t give the doctor the explicit details.</p>
<p>“he says McQueary told him a kid was in the shower and was pulled back in by an arm and that he heard flesh slapping together but says McQueary didn’t say he saw actual sex.”</p>
<p>but in the grand jury report, it says that McQueary saw Sandusky engaging in anal sex and “told Paterno what he had seen”. Paterno was quite “shaken” by the report, according to McQueary, and “slumped back in his chair”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true at all. Only Sandusky would be affected in a civil trial against him by the outcome of the criminal trial.</p>
<p>No, they’d all be affected because it would already be proven that “it happened” - they wouldn’t have to cover that territory again (as they had to, of example, in the OJ civil suits.) The only question that will then remain is which parties should be held civilly liable, and to what degree.</p>
<p>Regarding the defense, or lack thereof, from what I’ve read it seems Dranov would have been a better prosecution witness. He was supposed to be the big defense witness. What a bust.</p>
<p>Well, I think Dottie Sandusky knew as well as Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier. I think a number of coaches and players probably knew or had heard rumors. After all didn’t the DA get McQ’s name through an anonymous reply to postings on a PSU athletic message board? So others had to know!</p>
<h1>4560</h1>
<p>Mini - I strongly agree with you.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Civil suits against Sandusky and/or his wife are going to be a mere sideshow to the main event. They are financial small fry here. The main event will be the civil suits against the school. Penn State has the deep pockets here, and the victims’ lawyers will know just what to do to relieve them of big piles of cash. </p>
<p>I bet Penn State won’t even go to trial with most of the victims. They’ll settle -just hand over the cash with little or no haggling.</p>
<p>mini, #4560 – you nailed it.</p>
<p>Also in today’s news…</p>
<p>[Philadelphia</a> Priest Trial Jury Hung On 4 Of 5 Charges](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>Jurors are weighing criminal charges against a priest and a church supervisor, the first U.S. church official charged over his handling of abuse complaints.</p>
<p>Monsignor William Lynn is charged with conspiracy and child endangerment for allegedly helping the church cover up abuse complaints within the Philadelphia archdiocese from 1992 to 2004.</p>
<p>In 1994, Lynn created a list of 35 accused priests, based on complaints kept in secret, locked files at the Philadelphia archdiocese.</p>
<p>A signed memo that surfaced only this year – days after Bevilacqua died in January – shows that Bevilacqua had the list shredded. The memo and a surviving copy of the list were turned over to prosecutors in February, and shown to the jury.</p>
<p>Whatever the verdict, advocates for clergy-abuse victims consider the trial groundbreaking because of the evidence brought to light.</p>
<p>“No matter how this trial is ultimately resolved, the facts it revealed stand as a detailed and devastating indictment of the Philadelphia archdiocese. The transcript and exhibits of this trial are the most important record yet produced of an institution’s failure to prevent the sexual abuse of children,” said Terence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks clergy-abuse cases.</p>
<p>“This is a record of historic importance that will ultimately help the Catholic church and society at large to deal with a terrible and enduring problem.”</p>
<p>I hope this jury gets it right as well.</p>
<p>I also hope Spanier et al recognize their future</p>
<p>Hearing about all these child abuse episodes is so very sad and troubling.</p>
<p>Imagine 20 or 40 or 150 or 1,500 years ago when the same things were going on and no one – child or adult – felt empowered to speak up.</p>
<p>Child abuse isn’t new, I’m sure of it. Speaking up about it is new, so at least we as a society are moving forward.</p>
<p>[Mike</a> McQueary told Joe Paterno he saw something ‘extremely sexual’ between Jerry Sandusky, young boy | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/mcqueary_says_he_sat_at_patern.html]Mike”>Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno he saw something 'extremely sexual' between Jerry Sandusky, young boy - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>The above article quotes McQueary when he was asked what he told Joe Paterno.</p>
<p>“I went to his house and sat at his kitchen table and told him I saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower. That it was way over the lines and extremely sexual in nature,” McQueary testified. "The rough positioning I described but not in much detail.
“(Paterno) was slumped back in his chair, he said well I’m sorry you had to see that. It’s terrible. I need to think and tell some people about what you saw and I’ll let you know what we’ll do next.” end quote</p>
<p>The next morning Paterno told Curly and Schultz what he was told. Jerry Sandusky was not an employee of Penn State and had not been for some time. Curly and Schultz were the direct line to now deal with Sandusky. </p>
<p>These are the facts. </p>
<p>people can weave whatever theories they want about Paterno’s involvement but these are the facts from McQueary about what he said to Paterno. And the action that paterno took the next day.</p>
<p>I just needed to remind people of that.</p>
<p>“Imagine 20 or 40 or 150 or 1,500 years ago when the same things were going on and no one – child or adult – felt empowered to speak up.”</p>
<p>Homosexuality was common among the ancients and an accepted part of society. There is an interesting book by Michel Foucault and sexuality among the Greeks that is about just that. It involved young people. There are probably others.</p>