<p>^Just because it was accepted doesn’t make it right. Slavery was accepted, wife-beating, even slaying (for “just cause”) was accepted. A man’s slaves, wife, and children were his property to do with as he saw fit.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand what you’re saying here?</p>
<p>I don’t think that there has been any discussion as to whether Sandusky is homosexual or not–child molestation is much more about abuse of power and not sexual orientation. Because of his job in the football program, Sandusky had access to young boys who were very vulnerable. Very, very often child predators regard themselves as heterosexual, they are married and have children and are not “in the closet”–they use their power over children to satisfy themselves–and I think that equating homosexuality with child molestation is wrong.</p>
<p>Parent1986–not sure what you were saying re: homosexuality but certainly this case was about child sexual abuse, NOT homosexuality </p>
<p>Sax–I understand your protective feelings toward Paterno, however do you think the fact that he had to think about the next step, and wait til the morning to act is an appropriate response to McQueary’s report? Why did HE have to inform others, in any other setting it would be protocol to a. Take word for word notes and b. Accompany the witness to those in charge/ law enforcement to report said acts, immediately.
What if Sandusky had kidnapped or killed the boy in a desperate act after having been seen?
Sent from my MB865 using CC</p>
<p>“The next morning Paterno told Curly and Schultz what he was told.”</p>
<p>According to the grand jury, Paterno did NOT tell Curly and Schultz what he was told. To quote McQueary, he made sure that Paterno “knew what he had seen was sexual in nature, and that it was wrong.” According to the grand jury indictment, McQueary had seen anal sex, and “told Paterno what he had seen.”</p>
<p>“I don’t understand what you’re saying here?”</p>
<p>That the watering down/coverup (for this particular incident) started the very moment Paterno started to pass on “information”.</p>
<p>I agree with Sax and I have NO protective feelings towards Paterno and would have him hung in effigy if the evidence showed he knew what was specifically going on. McQ clearly stated that he did not spell it out to Paterno saying he had too much respect to do so, which makes NO sense to me at all, but that is what he said. The grand jury also believed fro McQ’s testimony that Paterno was not criminally implicated. There is more than enough shame, deep shame to spread around here that we don’t have to pile it on.</p>
<p>Three charges, two regarding the “deviant sex” have been dropped by the judge as there is insufficient evidence for them. I pointed that out much earlier, stating that there really was not enough here to go for “rape”. I do not believe that McQ out and out said he saw Sandusky raping the kid. For all the money, the old boy network, the protect Penn State, I do not believe that anyone believed that S was raping kids. I do believe that they knew, fully knew, had to know that he was inappropriate with them. There are many people who are over the comfort line in terms of personal space and touching. Where the issue comes is how over the line a person is. S was waaay over, and my prediction is that he will be found guilty of it. And there will be a lot to pay and some heads rolling at Penn State that enough was not done to take S out of the picture, away from children. </p>
<p>The big questions for me, since I do deal with kids and adults around kids, is when is a line crossed, when to act or rumors and suspicions and what to do. This is a real life NOW problem. It would be just one huge mess going nowhere to make such accusations without suffficient proof, and the question is what is the proof? That is where I am concerned. In the Penn State case, there is no question that at very least, those men, Paterno included, should have privately told Sandusky that they would bust his chops if they saw him ever near kids. They knew he had a problem that way and that it was not a one time thing. However, things were reported to law enforcement earlier on that issue and were dropped (strange situation with the head honcho disappearing). Those suspected and even accused have their rights and those rights have to be kept in mind when these things happen. It’s easy to point at a case like this one and paint everyone as big fat greedy villains, but it’s the whole case. There is also the need to abide the law in terms of right so those suspected. </p>
<p>Some very consistent guidelines need to be drawn. If I were ever accused, or anyone I know, and if the accusation were false or frivolous, I would sue the bank accounts off of the accuser and any supporting organization for everything I could, just to make it very clear what is involved here when you make accusations or even imply something like this. I would bet that even those guilty of such accusation would do the same if the charges and stories could not be proven. It’s not such an easy path to take to remove those so suspected.</p>
<p>okay cpt–what DO you think Paterno believed McQueary saw and reported?</p>
<p>what exactly is an act that is “extremely sexual?” it certainly is more than inappropriate boundaries. c’mon now?! and how can you say you don’t believe McQueary saw rape? how do you know what he saw and heard?</p>
<p>To those wondering what I was saying in #4580 - I was commenting on Very Happy’s comment #4578. The point is that pedophilia was once accepted in society, and yes it did involve gay and straight men and possibly girls/women. </p>
<p>I didn’t say I endorsed it. </p>
<p>The pedophilia argument that they are an unaccepted but legitimate group often use homosexuality as an argument to support their position.</p>
<p>Myturnnow . So I offer facts and you call this protective feelings towards
Paterno?</p>
<p>Extremely sexual. Yes. This is why Paterno reported to the head of police the next day. The extent to which was to be determined by those men in an interview with mcqueary.</p>
<p>Paterno had no need to hear more than he heard. He knew it was wrong. He reported it.</p>
<p>The best fact we have is mcquearys testimony of what he believes he told Paterno.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about the victim who said he was anally raped and bled?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, this is only those charges relating to Victim 4, because Victim 4 did not testify that he was actually raped by Sandusky. He is still being charged with “deviant sex” with other victims.</p>
<p>I respect your position Sax, but did you read my whole post. Your facts, while clearly facts, show Paterno WAITED til the next day, and decided that HE should take the role of communicating McQueary’s witness information, rather than having McQueary do the reporting. We’ve all played the telephone game and I think it permitted this alleged disortion. It appears noone recorded or documented McQueary’s report, which is clearly inappropriate in such a serious allegation.</p>
<p>Sax: Paterno was seen as a God at Penn State. Whatever he wanted, he got. He had the power.
He had more power than anyone at Penn State–including his so called bosses. Nobody bossed Paterno. Don’t even try to imply that he isn’t culpable in allowing Sandusky to continue using Penn St. as his personal child molesting bait. If Paterno valued the children as much as his precious reputation and that of Penn St., he could easily have had Sandusky exposed. Being set in his Old School mentality, he hid it under the mat so he could maintain his Jo-Pa image and his program could continue. It’s boils down to reputation and money being more important than people.</p>
<p>We need to define sexual contact and rape. To not be too graphic, I don’t think ine needs insertion for it to be rape. And either activity can look the same from even a short distance depending on the angle. Also, um, anal sex is not so easy on un unwilling. It was sex as sex doesn’t require penetration. People who don’t want children often have various methods of sex that don’t require actual intercourse. </p>
<p>So debating whether it was actual anal intercourse with a child is mute. It was still rape,</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how many millions Penn State ends up paying out in civil suit judgments and settlements plus legal fees to defend itself and its senior administrators. How many decades of football revenue will that be equal too? Was putting the football program in the hands of St. Joseph with little or no oversight a good idea? Was covering up the crimes to protect the program “worth it” in the end?</p>
<p>Oh and it was head of campus police, in house police…police yes, but with different loyalties, loyalties to Penn state…if paterno really wanted this investigated, he would have gone to external authorities, but then he wouldn’t have been able to control the fallout.</p>
<p>The campus police are REAL police. They have jurisdiction over the campus. They were the correct people to report it to. </p>
<p>And about Paterno reporting it to Curley and Schultz, I thought that McQueary was at that meeting as well, telling them what he had told Paterno.</p>
<p>What I don’t get about this is: if Paterno was really as powerful as people say, and if he really knew what Sandusky was up to, why isn’t Sandusky at the bottom of a lake in cement overshoes–or at least in retirement in Arizona? I can’t believe that any of these people would have taken the huge risk of covering up continuing pedophile behavior. Maybe if they convinced themselves that it was all in the past, they might have. But as we’ve seen, when it gets out, it wrecks everything–so why would they take that risk?</p>
<p>^^^Because egotistical people foolishly believe they can handle/contain the situation, when in fact it is the cover-up that brings them down.</p>
<p>I know they are REAL police, but they were policing their own. And look what a swell job they did!!!</p>
<p>And as they probablly had little to know experience dealing with child abuse they should have gone to others police to make sure they handled properly. </p>
<p>Most police departments have special units to deal with children and sexual abuse, it’s very different then handling drunken college kids, date rape, and theft.</p>
<p>Also, they were in house, and regardless of being real police or not, they should have sought advice on how handle the accusations, yet, they brushed it under the rug. </p>
<p>They had loyalties to paterno. No denying that. To think otherwise is naive.</p>
<p>The reason why Paterno would take that risk is because unethical things had been going on there for years and years–and every single time someone had the courage to speak out, they were quickly silenced–time and time again–no one dared to become the stool pigeon–not only would they lose their job, they would become a pariah–scorned and hated and run out of town. I think that Joe really believed that he had control over every thing that was released to the press–but this era of instant and mass communication was beyond his understanding or control–he really thought that his monarchy would continue for as long as he deemed necessary–and every time he was confronted with something he didn’t approve of, he threatened to stop fundraising for the University, and he has always been PSU’s biggest and most valuable fundraiser.</p>