I haven’t been following the story that closely, but it seems like with everyone jumping on Paterno and McQueary, Sandusky’s guilt is just being taken for granted. What is the nature of the evidence against him (other than McQueary’s testimony)? What are the chances he’s actually innocent? I understand he has denied the charges.
I was thinking the same thing. Unless Sandusky is lying.
Would JoePa get his job back, since there was nothing to report?
I think the number of victims speaks to his potential guilt. I could see one troubled youth making up a horrible story to discredit him but eight? Eight men all deciding to make up a story that they were raped?
Sandusky’s behavior, from what I’ve gathered following this case, has been odd for years. He had parents in 1998 begging him not to take showers with kids. His early retirement and the taking away of his keys to PSU facilities all suggests that this guy is the guiltiest shade of “innocent” there ever was. To put it in the simplest perspective, what would you as a parent do if you heard some guy was engaging in this kind of “horseplay” with your child? At the very least he’s guilty of inappropriate behavior towards children and abuse of his position of authority. At the very worst he’s a child rapist whose many many victims will probably never come forward out of shame or fear.
I predict Sandusky will commit suicide when he realizes that the rest of his life is going to be filled with rape… with him as the victim. Rather than die in jail with some felon teaching him the true meaning of “tight end” he’ll take the coward’s way out and overdose on pills and booze, leaving behind a long-winded note about how sorry he is and how he never meant any harm when he raped those kids.
There was something to report.
**emphasis added
Of course, Sandusky could be innocent (yeah, right), but Paterno had no way of knowing that at the time McQueary informed him of what he witnessed.
IIRC there are witnesses to previous incidents in 1998 and 2000, both janitorial staff.
Six victims testified at length and in great detail to a Grand Jury - the indictment was linked by Mince above. Even if you eliminate the two parts of the indictment where the victim’s identity is unknown (2 & 8), it’s pretty damning stuff. The whole Paterno/McQueary/PSU thing is honestly just a sideshow, and has little to do with Sandusky’s actual guilt.
And at least 10 more victims have contacted the DA as of today. This will never even make it to trial, the evidence is going to be overwhelming.
There are like 18 other threads on Sandusky - you couldn’t have asked this in one of those threads?
Egads.
I was actually hoping that this was somehow a huge mistake, but apparently this guy really is a serial child-rapist. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. This is about as evil as I can imagine. Honestly, raping young people that you were supposed to be helping? If there is a hell, there is a special section set aside for this man.
I am not a Penn State or Joe Paterno fan, but this is one horrific way to leave a program.
I doubt if anyone could have sold this plot as a movie. The reaction would have been, “Are you kidding? Who the hell would believe that crap?!?”
But, as they say, ‘truth is stranger than fiction’.
Where have you been for the last 20-30 years of scandal involving priests in the Roman Catholic church? It’s horrific, but certainly not without precedent. It’s all too believable, unfortunately.
When asked point-blank on NBC whether he was a pedophile/sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky replies (paraphrased) “sexually attracted?..Well, I like young people, I like being around them, but…um…sexually attracted? no…”. He admits to doing “some of the things” he’s been accused of - what he calls “horseplay” and showering naked with boys, and touching them (“their legs”) while naked, and describes the day that McQueary saw them as running around with all the shower heads turned on, and “sliding across the floor”.
I don’t have much doubt as to his guilt, personally. He’s admitted just a little too much, and the evidence that much, much more has happened is becoming overwhelming.
Really, in what world is going on NBC and interviewing with Bob Costas a good idea when you’re accused of multiple counts of sexual assault on a minor?!?!
As someone who watched Sandusky coach dozens of games (many of those at the stadium), I wouldn’t want to believe I’d watched and cheered for a monster all these years. But it’s impossible not to believe it. Thinking otherwise would mean that every kid in the deposition, most of whom had no way of contacting each other, made up the same story out of whole cloth. We’d have to believe that Sandusky offered no defense to the accusations of one victim, not because he was guilty, but because he cared so little about his reputation that he didn’t care if people thought he was a child molester. We’d have to believe that a current assistant coach made a completely false accusation about a then-respected figure in the program and not only stayed in his job but was continually promoted afterward. We’d have to believe that Sandusky was banned from bringing kids on campus for…well, I’m not sure for what reason, then. It’s just too much to have to juggle.
In the world where you hire a defense attorney who, at the age of 48, represented his 16 year old pregnant girlfriend in her suit to be legally emancipated from her parents.
If true this is one hell of a surprise. The kid in the shower *testified *that it never happened?
<shrug> I know there’s got to be more to than the story than this. Still, it’s interesting. I guess the guy (he would have been an adult when he faced the grand jury) was to embarrassed to admit he was buggered by this pedo pervert.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/boy-2002-shower-incident-denied-abuse-sandusky-035602476.html
No, the story doesn’t say anything about testimony. The defense lawyer says the alleged victim says the abuse didn’t happen. If he had testified to that effect before the grand jury, it would be a whole other story. The lawyer goes on to say he expects (which means what?) several of those kids will deny being abused. Which doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other. For now, it’s the defense trying to counter the tidal wave of bad publicity by saying “at least several” people will deny being abused by Sandusky. Meaning they hope it’ll be enough to cast doubt on everyone who maintains that he was abused, since there have been reports that the police are continuing to get new reports from people who say Sandusky abused them.
Sorry.
I got thrown by “detailed in the grand jury report” I thought they meant he testified. It sounded like details contained within the report said…
There’s some strange wording in that sentence.
The defense may be counting on people seeing the headline and assuming it’s about testimony and not about what someone supposedly told them in private. They lawyers are going to engage in various kinds of positioning even if the case never goes to trial.
It is possible that Sandusky’s innocent.
But he’s not.
Most lawyers on the sports radio shows this morning said the interview was a signal to his co-defendants to keep to the story (just harmless horseplay, nothing sexual). It wasn’t given for the benefit of the general public, who have already made up their minds. The lawyers I heard said it probably wouldn’t make much difference, but it was his best course of action.
In the interview, it seemed to me that the lawyer implied that they knew who the boy McQueary saw was, but 'tee-hee, imagine that" the prosecution didn’t. Are we to understand that they aren’t sharing this information with the State, but it conveniently supports the accused’s story?
That part seemed…weird…and I don’t know what to make of it.