<p>As to why they continued to cover up: It had always worked, and they had no reason to think it would stop working.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sax, it is very likely that ALL the facts will never come out. If that’s the case, are you prepared to give Paterno a pass for all eternity?</p>
<p>Is the need for instant gratification so overpowering that people can’t wait for this case to unwind with time? Let’s destroy these peoples reputations and move on to the next exciting news story before we even hear what everyone has to say?</p>
<p>I can wait.</p>
<p>They threw out 3 counts regarding AV#4, which could not be substaniated, at the request of a prosecution motion. </p>
<p>Tonight, Brian Williams will have an alleged victim who did not testify at the trial. This is a person who came forward after the charges were filed, was not put on the witness stand, cannot remember precisely what happened, and generally is not a particularly credible witness. NBC had the deal to interview a mere 4 hours after the jury was sent to deliberate. I just don’t want anyone to watch this and mistake it for one of the trial witnesses.</p>
<p>Also, Sara Ganim (pulitzer prize winner from Hburg who broke the story) is reporting that Sandusky’s estranged son Matt has retained a lawyer and is now alleging that he, too, was abused. This is the husband of the DIL who got a restraining order against Jerry last fall in order to keep him from visit with her two school age children (a boy, and a girl)</p>
<p>There was a report on the Today Show this morning about one of the sons asking to testify for the prosecution, but only if Sandusky, himself, testified. They showed him being escorted into the courtroom yesterday, and when Sandusky’s lawyer said that he was not going to testify, they showed him leaving. Nobody knew why he did not testify earlier, and why he was only going to do so if his father did.</p>
<p>[State</a> College, PA - Jerry Sandusky’s Adopted Son Matt Says He was Abused](<a href=“http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/jerry-sanduskys-adopted-son-matt-says-he-was-abused-1073062/]State”>http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/jerry-sanduskys-adopted-son-matt-says-he-was-abused-1073062/)</p>
<p>WOW</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 think it has to do with perceiving Sandusky as “one of our own.” Attacks on him – accusations, arrests, whatever – are attacks on the inviolable Paterno circle. From the outside, it is obvious that the only right solution is to amputate a limb as diseased as Sandusky. From the inside, there is such strong identification as a group that amputation is unthinkable. It’s all one body. Sending Sandusky to Arizona would have meant acknowledging that the inner sanctum was poisoned.</p>
<p>On an unrelated note, as the aunt of biological and adopted kids, I hate the automatic identification of anyone as an “adopted” son unless the story is about adoption.</p>
<p>Kill their reputations? They did that all on their own.</p>
<p>Isn’t this the son who has been insisting he WASN’T abused?</p>
<p>Hanna, I think in this case the fact that the son was adopted may be relevant to whole sordid story.</p>
<p>I think the ---- is going to hit the fan…</p>
<p>sax–the shower thing? really? we’ve all discussed the power of words on this thread in terms of descriptions of abuse. I respect your perspective, but surprised you would minimize what it was that McQueary clearly saw, and it was never referred to as “the shower thing”</p>
<p>based on Matt Sandusky’s mother’s report, Matt’s accusation that he too was sexually abused by Sandusky should come as no surprise. shortly after being placed in foster care at the Sandusky’s home he became suicidal.</p>
<p>Wasn’t this the son who specifically said that he knew of no abuse situations? I wonder what on earth happened here that he suddenly changes his story. And now he is saying he wants the media to “respect his privacy” after throwing this into the mix too late to be used for the case, but just in time to throw a wrench into the situation? I wonder if he just found out that his kids were abused or something like that. </p>
<p>What will this do to the case if any of the jury members heard about this during deliberations? </p>
<p>Myturnnow, I don’t think it’s a problem if we use euphemisms or shortcuts in describing a situation. From what the judge threw out, we cannot call it a "rape’ or its legal equivalent as that is off the table now. Whatever happened in that shower, and i do think a full rape was possible, maybe even probably, S cannot legally be convicted of that.</p>
<p>Sax under what circumstances is it acceptable for a naked grown man to be within a foot of a naked child in a shower. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, tho there was the claim someone had to teach them how to wash by touching them or some such noncess.</p>
<p>So please explain away why Jerry was standing behind the little boy while both were naked</p>
<p>And why they would be so close as to be under the same shower head. Water conservation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is absolutely false. The judge threw out only the deviant sex charges that pertained to Victim 4. There are more, with other victims, that still stand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The equivalent of the “rape” charges were thrown out with regard to one particular alleged victim, because he stated that Sandusky “tried” to penetrate, but he prevented Sandusky from doing so by resisting. Another victim emphatically stated that he was anally raped, and that charge was not dropped.</p>
<p>At least that is my understanding of what happened today.</p>
<p>EDIT: cross posted w/goingmyway</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, according to McQ, thrusting his naked body onto the boy’s backside in a rhythmic manner so that McQ heard “slapping sounds” and had the distinct impression that he was witnessing anal rape.</p>
<p>Seahorserock, though I fully agree that it is not acceptable for a naked grown man to be in the shower with a naked child unless some extreme situation–(both fell into a mess of poison ivy MAYBE), it is NOT illegal. Several coaches testified that they have showered with their underage charges. The prosecution made sure that the circumstances for those situations were made clear, but it isn’t the showering that is the issue. What McQ stated was that there was more than showering going on, and that it involved sexual assault on the child. He was even more specific than that. But that was thrown out in terms of charges. There are 49 other counts to be discussed and decided upon, but the PA equivalent of male rape was thrown out. </p>
<p>But it is NOT a crime for a naked grown man to be within a foot of a naked child in a shower. That alone is not a crime and it happens innocently and as a matter of fact in a number of scenarios. I don’t think it should and with these types of abuse cases coming to the forefront, it may be something outright forbidden. </p>
<p>THere were many occasions where there were communal showers where adults and children showered naked together. Swimming, camp are just a few examples. We, moms, hated them. Not at all interested in sharing our sags, wrinkles, c-section scars, but in the interest of time in many of those occaisions, you showered and got out. I never heard a whisper, mention or hint of any problems. Not a thing. </p>
<p>What S was doing was a whole other thing, and he was focusing on lone children. The big issue here is whether what happened can fit some or all of the criminal charges, so that he can legitimately be found guilty. I doubt there was anyone who believed or believes that Casey Anthony did not have anything to do with what happened to her daughter. The problem was getting the evidence to support the charges. Like it or not, that is how our legal system works.</p>
<p>Myturn, a lot of those kids had a lot of problems anyways. Maybe it was abuse from S that made Matt suicidal, maybe it was a combination of factors, maybe he had psychological issues. To be torn from one’s natural family and be adopted at that age had to involve some traumatic events. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why the prosecution did not bring Matt into the picture, and why he was used as a “weapon” to prevent S from testifying. I would have thought, given the spin about S’s statements, that the prosecution would have wanted a chance to question S. Somehow, Matt’s statements did not add anything to the prosecution’s case. Or perhaps, this is to be kept in reserve for future prosecutions if this case does not pan out. I wonder if the prosecution has doubts on the outcome of this case. It seems to me that a conviciton for a number of those charges is pretty much assured.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are WRONG. You can keep saying it, but you will still be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jerry-sandusky-trial-jury-20120621,0,4596686.story[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jerry-sandusky-trial-jury-20120621,0,4596686.story</a></p>
<p>thanks for posting the reality of the charges goingmyway</p>
<p>cpt–your own apparent continued denial is an example of how so many others could not believe Sandusky actually sexually abused so many for so long.</p>
<p>I find the on-going defense of Sandusky deeply disturbing.</p>