<p>Maybe Paterno told Sandusky to knock it off, and actually believed that he would.</p>
<p>I believe it has been stated that it was 10 days later that McQueary was finally called in to provide details of what he observed in that locker room. Either they minimized the act that it was so low on the priority list or delaying interviewing the witness was a deliberate action meant to dilute the facts, so they could be able to say, “we didn’t know it was sexual”</p>
<p>As for cover up, it was to protect themselves. It is very easy to turn a blind eye and ignore to protect yourself, your institution, (look at the catholic church).</p>
<p>Also, once it has continued and you knew about it, you can then be legally responsible, so you just keep covering. </p>
<p>Dottie would never ever admit to anything even if she suspected or knew for sure. She is savvy, any admission opens her up to criminalmor civil prosecution. </p>
<p>Families cover for their kids, the church covers for their staff, the army covers up rapes all the time, it an institutional mindset.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I looked up PA definition of rape and it requires penetration, even slight penetration to qualify as rape.
Having said that, I agree there is evidence that rape occurred. The victims have testified to it. Oral sex is rape, as well. And there was the testimony of the mom who said that her son wouldn’t allow her to wash his underwear. While that may not be concrete evidence, I would suggest that together with the other evidence, it should be enough to indicate that rape occurred. In any rape case, unless there is physical evidence on the victim, there is unlikely to be other evidence of penetration or witnesses to the event! They have to go on what has been stated. Flesh on flesh slapping sounds, bear hug from the back, hip moving. I know what I would conclude.</p>
<p>McQueary stated that he has no doubt that what he saw in the shower was anal rape. I trust he knows what that looks like.</p>
<p>Look at history. There are myriad and many examples of people getting away with all kinds of horrid things, but it being covered up. Royal families did it all the time. Police officers cover for each other, war attrocities are often lied about, </p>
<p>Lately many incidents that people tried to cover up were videotaped so the truth came out. Rodney king beating is an example. We are seeing the truth come out in Syria, even though the government is still teying to lie.</p>
<p>Covering up is much more common than we want to believe, even presidents have done it.</p>
<p>But in this case, covering up should have involved keeping Sandusky as far away from campus as possible. That’s what I don’t get.</p>
<p>I’m getting a sense of deja vu here. Cptofthehouse just said, “we need to define sexual contact and rape.”</p>
<p>Didn’t we already have this exact same conversation, on this thread, not that long ago?</p>
<p>See my post # 4346:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sandusky’s lawyer’s closing argument: if he did this, I’m the first to say he should rot in jail. But he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Even the judge cautioned that bad judgement is not a criminal offense–that simply showering with children, as offensive and suspicious as we might find it, is not criminal. He also has cautioned that you can’t see the inconsistencies of testimony as evidence of stress or trauma, because that presumes (unlawfully) that Sandusky is guilty of something. I am depressed. </p>
<p>Amendola went on to argue that there is no proof, no evidence, and presumption of innocence. That his accusers all knew each other, and have for years, and others have testified that at least one of them was bragging about how he would own Sandusky’s house when this was done. I am unsure how Amendola squares McQueary’s testimony with the “no proof” part. </p>
<p>There are 48 counts, and each has to be considered. (And don’t anyone misunderstand – I think he’s guilty, and should go to jail) I have faith in my peers.</p>
<p>They kept bad priests around for decades. What is not to get? They shuffled them around, but they didn’t fire them. They were rarely sent to far off desolate places. </p>
<p>It’s the same mindset. Does it make sense from the outside? No. But it is how it often is.</p>
<p>greenbutton, minor point: “no proof” means no physical evidence. There’s plenty of “proof” in direct testimony. That is all you need to convict. The defense lawyers are, correctly in legal terms, trying to create doubt by focusing on the lack of physical evidence of sexual assault and the other, minor to me impeachments of credibility like “they all knew each other”. The implication they’re trying to draw is that somehow these guys decided, even when younger than today - and at least, I believe, is still in his teens - to gang up on this beloved Sandusky guy so they could extract money. </p>
<p>The problem with the extracting money idea is something I expect the jury to pick up on right away: there is absolutely no way these kids could have known at any time what the Penn State officials failed to do. They had no way of knowing until after the Grand Jury - and I can only guess when - that Penn State officials had fallen down on the job. They had no way of knowing when they originally testified that there was any money to be had, because Sandusky isn’t known to be wealthy. Thus, the implicit idea that these kids knew they could get money from Penn State by accusing this community leader of heinous acts is baseless garbage. I think the jury will see that.</p>
<p>a bit off topic from the last three posts.</p>
<p>Hopefully someday someone will write a book with the exact timeline of events so that people can get a better understanding of WHEN people knew what and did what.</p>
<p>I think that will help people better put into context the actions of those people involved and the things that they said and did.</p>
<p>We were all outraged, absolutely outraged and sickened, when we read the leaked grand jury report. Our expectations for the actions of those involved are based on the horror of what was in that report. </p>
<p>Up until this report what did people know? That Sandusky had previously been investigated and nothing came of it? That McQueary told Paterno he saw something sexual but McQueary states he was too embarrassed to use graphic terms and only met with Paterno for about about 10 minutes.</p>
<p>McQueary saw this shower thing late at night. He called Paterno in the early a.m.to set up a meeting but did not discuss why he wanted a mtg. They met in the afternoon. Paterno met with Curly and Schultz the very next day. I don’t have a problem with this timing. </p>
<p>I am not ready to vilify Paterno without more facts. </p>
<p>Now why did those two guys wait 10 days? I don’t know and do hope to find out in the coming months . I am very curious about the email content with Spanier. </p>
<p>I am very curious about the leaked grand jury report apparently coming out months ahead of time and getting no attention. Was it the same contents that we all read?</p>
<p>Tons and tons of questions. I can’t wait for all the facts to come out. It is however frightening watching peoples lives be destroyed by guesses and rumor that becomes “fact” to many because it is repeated so often. </p>
<p>It is easy to jump on the bandwagon. i have certainly jumped on and off in this case as emotions ebbed and waned with the release of peoples statements.</p>
<p>and dont get me started on the role of the media. This is a book all it’s own.</p>
<p>Yahoo News (not the greatest source, I know) just reported that three counts against the sob Sandusky have been tossed out. Lawyers out there, care to speculate what it may mean for the rest of the charges?</p>
<p>
Im guessing/speculating that when Sandusky resigned he was given benefits similar to what a professor emeritus receives (full campus access). He probably assured the PSU admin, after the 1998 incident and again after the 2002 incident, that he would stop bringing young boys to the athletic facilities. When it became obvious he had no intention of stopping the PSU admin were in a catch 22. In order to forcibly take away his privileges they would have to explain why … which would result in the situation they find themselves in now. If you have/had knowledge of what Sandusky was doing why didnt you report him to the authorities??</p>
<p>DonnaL, where did you find that information about PA law and the definition of rape? I don’t see the issue of gender when I look it up.</p>
<p>[Rape</a> - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3121 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws](<a href=“http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.031.021.000.html]Rape”>http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.031.021.000.html)</p>
<p>There doesn’t have to be a mention of gender, really (unless you happen to be thinking about transgender issues, which aren’t present in this case). If you cross-reference all the definitions, you’ll see that “rape” requires a vagina. Hence, the distinction between intercourse (defined to include any penetration) (= rape) and “deviate” intercourse (= not “rape”).</p>
<p>This is from a PA lawyer’s website defining rape and deviate intercourse. According to this, penetration, even slight, whether vaginally, orally or anally is rape. Deviate sex has overlaps to this definition but is a separate charge.</p>
<p>[Delaware</a> County Sex Crime Lawyer :: Rape :: West Chester Megan’s Law Attorney](<a href=“Rape | Delaware County Crime Lawyer Jason R. Antoine”>Rape | Delaware County Crime Lawyer Jason R. Antoine)</p>
<p>OK, I defer to his expertise. I assumed that Pennsylvania was similar to New York in making that distinction. Apparently not. Still, for whatever reason, Sandusky wasn’t charged with rape.</p>
<p>That lawyer’s website goes on to explain that rape and deviate intercourse are very similar, and that a prosecutor can’t charge somebody with both for the same act. The difference does seem to be that rape includes vaginal intercourse, while deviant intercourse doesn’t. (It seems likely that it’s a remnant of a distinction between vaginal intercourse and “sodomy.”)</p>
<p>Right, I wasn’t trying to prove you wrong 
But i just couldn’t believe that a state has such an archaic definition of rape. Although from what you say, New York does.</p>
<p>In my mind, with or without penetration, Sandusky is guilty of sexual assault. And again, oral rape IS rape.</p>
<p>This is a timeline of events that I found helpful. Can’t vouch for the source or accuracy, though.</p>
<p>[The</a> case against Sandusky - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/case-against-sandusky/]The”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/case-against-sandusky/)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m still hopeful. There is nothing in the judge’s statement as reported here that IMO will negate the powerful testimony of the victims themselves.</p>