<p>“I’m glad you mentioned that case, since we all “know” what happened there. Only we don’t. There was a chapter about it in “Superfreakonomics.” It’s worth reading.”</p>
<p>Hunt, why is “know” in parenthesis? I didn’t type it. I said it was “widely thought” and that is correct. Those people were interviewed and it was investigated. Many said they thought someone else would call the police.</p>
<p>
That’s a good question. The report doesn’t say, although it’s hard to see who else it could be but McQuearey. In reading that section of the report again, I have to say that there are a lot of unanswered questions about who said exactly what, and when. It’s also worth noting that the report sometimes states events as facts, and at other times states that somebody “testified” that this or that happened. Of course, almost everything in there is based on somebody’s testimony, and much of the testimony is contradictory. The grand jury found some witnesses credible, and others not credible–but again, it’s important to point out that a grand jury investigation is controlled by the prosecutor, and there is no cross-examination of the witnesses. A somewhat different picture may emerge if there is ever a trial on any of these charges. But there probably won’t be. Sandusky will plead, and the charges against the others will eventually be dropped when they have left their jobs–that will be their punishment. The cases against them would be very difficult to prove.</p>
<p>
Because that last sentence isn’t really true. But it’s what we all “know” about that case. The truth of the case is quite different. But that’s my point–once the public version of a story like this is “known,” any contradictory facts never catch up. Whatever Paterno says now, and whatever comes out, people will “know” that he knew about child molestation and did nothing.</p>
<p>Ohiomom, I was commenting on the Lululemon murder, not Genevese. The Apple Store employees were on the other side of the wall, after both stores had closed, and could hear the groans and pleas of the murder victim as she sustained 331 wounds – and could testify to the words they heard. (!). They didn’t call the cops, didn’t go next door, etc. Their actions have gotten a lot of scrutiny here in the past couple of weeks as the trial was held. Two of my doctors have offices directly across the street from where this took place.</p>
<p>There are a lot of people who consider themselves good folks who fail when tested.</p>
<p>“So it appears they didn’t notify the police or the charity that there was a problem.”</p>
<p>I’ve read a number of sources that said the charity was notified. And if that is correct, the charity also did nothing to protect the children.</p>
<p>Hunt- you are right in many instances perception becomes reality- facts do not matter.</p>
<p>Imagine if Paterno went to the DA or went with the GA.</p>
<p>tom…the only facts that most are rolling with is what we read in the report.
That’s all we have, and it sure doesn’t paint a pretty picture for all involved.</p>
<p>I would just note that it seems to me that it will be difficult to get a conviction of Sandusky himself for this particular incident. There is no victim to testify, and no information on who the victim was. There is only testimony of one person that a crime was committed, and several other people who will say that the witness didn’t really tell them that a crime was committed. Paterno’s testimony, it appears, would be equivocal. There’s no physical evidence. There’s no mention in the report (that I can recall) of any evidence corroborating the testimony that Sandusky was on campus that day. The witness would be subject to tough cross-examination on why, if he really saw what he now says he saw, he didn’t intervene. If a trial was based on that alone, Sandusky would probably be acquitted.</p>
<p>geeps, you sort of make my point–the report is designed to paint a picture. It isn’t designed to give multiple points of view, or to weigh the evidence, or give pros and cons.</p>
<p>At the time claim they were not, I went to their website, they say Penn state told second mile that an individual reported to curley that the employee felt uncomfortable about sandusky showering with the boys. Curly told second mile it was investigated and there was no wrongdoing. In 2008 second city was informed of the grand jury and say they immediately told sandusky he could involved in any activities involving children. They were finally contacted by the attorney general in 2011. They should have been much more proactive in dealing with this for sure. They also failed to check this out themselves and sadunsky should have been asked to leave second mile in all aspects.</p>
<p>But Penn state was not truthful to them, they never informed the police and they coddled a molester for a decade. They should all be fired</p>
<p>There were several other events and sadusnky was barred from sexual contact at his home, at an elementary school, phone calls made upwards of 57, a janitor who saw yet another incident, a conversation with a victims mother overheard by campus police, he was barred from a high school. This was a systematic assault on young boys, Penn state football knew, and gave the man an office and access to lure boys. His second mile group was his hunting ground.</p>
<p>Oops, typo, second mile told sadunsky he could have to activities that involved children…</p>
<p>Also how can the college have a gag order not allowing their employees discuss this case? what are they afraid of</p>
<p>Re McQueary: A 28-year-old man should not have left the scene without rescuing the kid. He should have called the cops right away. Waiting until the next day and then telling the football coach doesn’t cut it.</p>
<p>Parade all 20 or 50 or whatever the real number of vicitms telling their stories and that is all the evidence they will need. He’ll plead out to avoid that humiliation.</p>
<p>Did I read correctly that the grand jury was convened in 2008? It took 3 years to find this out?</p>
<p>Yup three years, and it was two victims who saw it thru, if any boys where molested in the meantime, well…</p>
<p>I am curious what the impact of all of this will be on the school.</p>
<p>
me too. The college has a legal responsibility to disclose info, and has a responsibility to keep ALL STUDENTS (the young camp students and the college age students) safe. I will be interested to see what happens. It is sad…</p>
<p>The area where I live seems to have a huge cult like following when it comes to Penn State. A lot of alumni live here
I never really understood it , since I couldn’t care less about football .
I also don’t understand why Penn State has the highest COA for any state college, and even more puzzled as to why , when the football programs brings in 70m a year they aren’t more generous with financial aid ?</p>
<p>Another twist to story</p>
<p>[Former</a> Centre County DA Ray Gricar’s reasons for not pursuing case against Jerry Sandusky are unknown | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/former_centre_county_da_ray_g.html]Former”>Former Centre County DA Ray Gricar's reasons for not pursuing case against Jerry Sandusky are unknown - pennlive.com)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area</a></p>
<p>One reason PSU has the highest COA is that it is not a state school, it is considered a state related university and as such has a lower level of state funding. The annual budget is over $4B, only $279M comes from the state. There are 14 state schools (the PASSHE); they are lesser known, NCAA Division II schools.</p>
<p>"I am curious what the impact of all of this will be on the school. "</p>
<p>Every single kid who was victimized will sue Penn State and claim, in part, that Penn State was placed on notice that they had a child predator on their premises and they failed to take the required steps to protest children. But for their ommissions, everyone of these boys would have been safe.</p>
<p>The amount of financial exposure will surpass the policy limits of Penn State’s insurance carrier and the State of Pennsylvania and alumni will get on a payment plan.</p>