<p>All of the attorney’s on here, should the judge that set Sandusky’s bail (or non-bail) have recused herself for conflict of interest? I would really like to know.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think volunteering for an organization requires the judge to recuse herself. That is not much different from making a donation.</p>
<p>Don’t know anything about the judge who set Sandusky’s bail or non-bail. I always recused myself if there was even a hint of a conflict of interest, just to be safe. Much cleaner that way.</p>
<p>Depends on how much volunteering the judge did–some volunteers are more involved and have more power than paid staff while others just stuff envelopes or participate in a fundraiser perhaps once a year or less.</p>
<p>[Judge</a> Who Set Unsecured Bail For Jerry Sandusky Is a Second Mile Volunteer](<a href=“Judge Who Set Unsecured Bail For Jerry Sandusky Is A Second Mile Volunteer [UPDATE]”>Judge Who Set Unsecured Bail For Jerry Sandusky Is A Second Mile Volunteer [UPDATE])
this is about the judge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my god. He looked that child in the eyes and did nothing? I thought I had no respect for him before. Somehow I just lost more of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He said, according to the Washington Post “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”</p>
<p>Edit: And the preceding post is untrue. The grand jury report indicates that he believe both Sandusky and the boy saw him, if I recall correctly. Pleas refrain from rewriting the only official account so that it fits your arguments. Its careless, and its vile.</p>
<p>Again, aside from the horrendous moral implications of them looking into each others’ eyes, this means that (if all MCQ testified is true) SANDUSKY KNEW HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT. This can lead to SPECULATION of him having a reaction, speaking to people, threatening, whatever… to DEFEND HIMSELF, PRE-EMPT ANY REACTIONS.</p>
<p>This is from the AP today:</p>
<p>“Paterno spent his first fall Saturday in 61 years without football elsewhere — returning home only after the game had ended and heading directly inside. His family has said they’re under direction from high-profile criminal attorney Wick Sollers from Washington, D.C., to stay silent on the matter.”</p>
<p>So much for hearing anything from Paterno anytime soon</p>
<p>Wow, you go away for awhile and look at all these posts…seems a lot of us take this issue very seriously and that’s a good thing. Time for sunshine to shine in the darkest corners.</p>
<p>I watched part of the Penn State game on tv yesterday (though I have no connection to Penn State) and I also, like some posters stated above, was rather happy they did not win. I previously posted I thought their football season should have ended before the Nebraska game. I don’t feel sorry for the football program; I DO feel sorry for professors across the campus who don’t have anything to do with sports. I am unsure what to feel about the “fans” and students after viewing reports and reading links upstream that were disturbing about the attitude of many…</p>
<p>Interestingly, I thought I heard the acting Penn State head coach (Bradley?!) state later in a post-game on field interview yesterday (probably on Big 10 channel on tv) something to the effect that they (Penn State) didn’t really lose, weren’t really beaten, just ran out of time.
Yikes what a superior attitude.</p>
<p>MOWC’s post has the news that has my friends and I stunned. If that lawyer was murdered, …just wow.</p>
<p>Interesting, this case was made public by a 24 y.o. journalist from Coral Springs, FL., Sara Ganim, at the Patriot-News, in Harrisburg, PA. An article appeared in The Miami Herald, by Adam Beasley. I cannot get a direct link. It would be interesting to read her articles directly. She wrote in March about the Sandusky grand jury’s investigation.</p>
<p>McQueary grew up around Sandusky, friends with his and Paterno’s kids, it is possible they knew about Sandusky their whole lives, possibly firsthand. Imagine that the culture was entrenched in sick, dysfunctional see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That would explain McQueary not uttering a word when seeing a 10 year old being raped, and thinking he needed to check with his father about how to handle it. So Dad, do you think since it’s rape and the kid is so young this time we should actually tell someone?</p>
<p>dadx: “vile” has come to mind often while considering this topic, but frankly not to describe the people outraged that no one helped a child. That’s a fact, isn’t it? At least one child was raped by a coach at Penn State, there were adults at Penn State who knew this, and no one at Penn State did anything meaningful about it. Now that is vile.</p>
<p>Myturnnow:</p>
<p>It is possible that there is secret Penn St. cabal of pedophiles and cannibals who eat suspicious D.A.s, but I doubt it. A failure of nerve is far more banal than that and far more likely. </p>
<p>Many organizations dealing with children are penetrated (so to speak) by sexual predators, church, boy scouts, schools, etc. The predatory aspect is age vs. youth, not necessarily man vs. boy since there are men vs. girl, woman vs. boy, etc. What makes this exceptional is that very high profile men were fooled by Sandusky, and the men who were fooled were those trumpeted the virtue of their institution. At least I hope those men were fooled, and did not cover up with knowledge as did the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>“fooled”- S just went along jollily doing all this, and no one noticed. Amazing, if true.</p>
<p>All of the emphasis on looking into the eyes of the child and Sandusky as somehow making McQueary’s conduct worse seems odd to me. McQueary saw them. They looked at him. Whether they made eye contact or not seems like an irrelevant detail to me. </p>
<p>If McQueary saw them unobserved and then withdrew and said something, but did not show himself, they would have heard him. I don’t think that would be any different scenario. </p>
<p>What I would like to know is whether McQueary knows whether locking eyes with Sandusky stopped the assault. I would think that it would have, but who knows. Even if McQueary hightailed it out of there, Sandusky would have to wonder if he was in fact calling the police.</p>
<p>bookworm, I think this aspect, of the missing district attorney, reaches into one of the biggest mysteries in the case. (aside from why McQ didn’t stop Sandusky when he saw what he saw, etc)… read about him here: <a href=“Questions on Sandusky Wrapped in 2005 Gricar Mystery - The New York Times”>Questions on Sandusky Wrapped in 2005 Gricar Mystery - The New York Times;
<p>By “fooled,” I am referring to Sandusky rising through the ranks. I have a hard time believing that they knew that he was a pedophile, but so good a defensive coach that they did not care. They could not have been “fooled” by the assault witnessed by McQueary.</p>
<p>I think we are making way too much of the DA. It was many years later in 2005 when he disappeared. The case has been dropped long time ago before. The DA must have handled hundreds of cases a year, to think that this is the case that did him in is a little presumptuous.</p>
<p>Bogney- no need to mock me or exaggerate what I stated. Quite possible that this case parallels the church’s cover up. And no I certainly din’t think any of these men were “fooled” as you suggest</p>
<p>Alright, I have not read all 128 pages, all I would ask is that anyone interested in this story, or commenting - should at least read the grand jury report, it takes about 10 minutes. Very eye opening. I call it horrifying - it reveals a pattern of complicity for years.</p>