<p>And he was. You would think that coming upon an older man raping a 10 year old boy, you would say something like, “Hey! What’s going on here?” with the hope that the older guy would skedaddle. But the grad student kept mum, had to go home and talk with his father first , before going to Paterno in the morning and telling him what he saw. </p>
<p>Obviously ratting out Sandusky was seen as perhaps having bad consequences for the grad student and not something to be done lightly. He could have kept mum about the whole incident. But he chose to tell Paterno.</p>
<p>Everyone passed the question of whether to call the police to the next higher up person in the food chain–but at what point did the buck legally stop? And at what point should the buck morally have stopped?</p>
<p>Yes the more I think about the fact that a 28 year old man came upon this and did nothing to stop it at that instant the more bewildered I am about the entire thing.</p>
<p>I think at the trial that is going to be asked again and again.</p>
<p>"…jail time for facilitating the rape and assault of an untold number of children."</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that this was not just one child (it rarely is). It is clear that the old man --Paterno – and the PSU administration and police were well aware Sandusky is a serial child rapist. That will be established as fact at trial. And yet he was running football camps for young boys until just a few years ago, and had full PSU access until this week, as a “retired” coach. Disgusting is the understatement of the century.</p>
<p>Snowdog- how exactly is this clear-It is clear that the old man --Paterno – and the PSU administration and police were well aware Sandusky is a serial child rapist. When there has not even been a trial yet? On one hand there is a famous saying about the prosecutors being able to get any indictment they want but without a trial everyone touching this case is guilty. And before anyone jumps on my case about defending anyone- I am not if they are guilty they should face the consequences. I wonder why any of you even support having trials</p>
<p>Of course we support having trials. It’s just that the trials could have started a decade ago and spared more young boys this traumatic and scarring experience if anyone who had witnessed it or been told about had informed the police. That would have allowed the rule of law to occur. Handling it “in house” (or, more accurately, “keeping it in house without handling it”) allowed more young boys to be brutalized. </p>
<p>The fact that the graduate assistant, Paterno, the administration, and whoever else allowed that little 10 year old boy to go home, physically and emotionally injured, and try to work through dealing with “What just happened? Is it OK? If not, was it my fault? Should I tell my parents? Will my parents be mad at me?” all by himself is sick and inexcusable. And criminal, since suspected child abuse is supposed to be reported.</p>
<p>this would be a frightening tale to be shown on the “what would you do” tv show. I came upon a mother hitting her under 2 yr old in a shopping cart and I let her know she needed to stop immediately, that he was a baby. how can someone see a 10 yr old be raped and not recognize the violent assault that it is. how do you not simply call police, even anonymously to report said event?</p>
<p>The only one that could have assisted the 10 year old at that time was the GA. If he saw what he now claims it called for immediate action. It did not call for going home and talking to his dad and then calling Paterno.</p>
<p>I read the grand jury report multiple times. You are correct they are all guilty because of that report. Lets go round up the Duke lacrosse players their grand jury report was damning also.</p>
<p>Of course it goes without saying, if the allegations of the 8 victims are true. To think otherwise would be like offering “unconditional support” to those accused.</p>
<p>This case will be all about who knew exactly what, and when. It will probably be murky. But it seems to me that it was known that Sandusky was a problem as early as 1998, and he should have been cut loose then. But they didn’t do that. Even the 2002 incident wasn’t enough to get him permanently banned from campus (much less reported to the real police). And I know everybody likes Paterno and thinks he’s a great guy, but he pretty clearly knew enough to know that Sandusky shouldn’t be around any more. I think they’re going to have to fire everybody, including Paterno and Spanier–with the possible exception of the grad student, who at least tried to do the right thing. I cut anybody some slack in dealing with a sudden shocking situation, but those who were told about it later have no such excuse.</p>
<p>Hunt- I think Sandusky is guilty. I think the issue is what did the GA tell Paterno and then what did he tell the two charged. As to Paterno’s reputation we need to find out what follow up if any did he do and what was he told by the GA and then the two that are now charged. We also do not know what Paterno was told the reason the DA did not charge Sandusky in 1998.
There was an interesting situation at yesterdays DA press conference where the DA was told Sandusky came to a closed practice with a young boy. The DA was clearly unaware of that and I got the sense that both Paterno and the GA were going to be asked about it.</p>
<p>He WAS reported to the “real police” in 1998 when a mother complained about his shower activities with her son.</p>
<p>The university’s police force is a real, sworn, armed police force with its own detectives and that’s the force that has jurisdiction over Penn State’s campus. The Grand Jury report says that a university police detective even went so far as to conduct a sting operation with Sandusky where, with the consent of the mother, multiple conversations the mother had with Sandusky were secretly monitored. </p>
<p>During those conversations Sandusky said some very odd things that should have, at the very least, thrown up some big red flags… instead the area’s DA reviewed the investigation and then nothing happened… the detective was told to stop the investigation and the file was just quietly put away. </p>
<p>The report also states that this investigation was conducted under the oversight of the university’s chief lawyer… which also just happened to be the chief lawyer for Sandusky’s charity–the source of all the alleged victims.</p>
<p>There are a lot of people that have a lot to answer for at this point and I imagine the investigators are probably just getting started. The way such things tend to go, once someone starts taking the cards start falling down.</p>
<p>Just heard that even though Sandusky was kicked off the main Penn State campus that he was allowed to continue to hold football camps at satellite campuses. Sickening.</p>
<p>Anyone know what time Paterno’s press conference is?</p>
<p>PA child abuse laws require any allegation of abuse, misconduct, or improper contact – whether reported by a child or witnessed by a child or adult — be reported to the ChildLine hotline within 48 hours. Even (and it’s a big “even” ) if the admins reported what they were told (not some sanitized version they concocted over the 6 day interval) they STILL broke the law in regard to timeliness. They STILL told a Grand Jury they never were told by the GA. The GA is an extremely credible witness. </p>
<p>Alums and students are calling for both G-Span’s and Paterno’s resignation. Paterno had the power to do anything in this situation, and response was to pass the buck, and tell us now that he didn’t know the GA’s charge was serious. It’s not okay, even if it makes sense. Nittany Nation can rationalize all they want to, but they are the ones with the power to make people accountable and instead they are clinging to the illusion that this venerated man is guiltless and blameless and without fault. Because if JoePa should have done better, if it isn’t Success with Honor after all, but Ignore What We are Seeing, what have they been supporting?</p>
<p>I would think Paterno would discuss any statement he is going to make with the DA’s office. He better stay in their good graces because ultimately the DA will hang him or help him. Whether she indicts him or not.</p>