You may very well be right. I’m not certain either way.
Yes. And then I sure as hell wouldn’t take a job with them for NINE YEARS and say nothing about what I’d seen.
The grand jury report and the story I linked to contain the information. Are you seeing different information elsewhere?
People! Read the damn indictment! McQueary did, indeed, witness anal rape on a 10-year-old boy. The people doing all the pooh-poohing based on Paterno’s reputation should really think about what they’re saying.
No, read the indictment, linked to in post #36. The term used on page 6 is “anal intercourse”, and the apparent age of the victim removed any question that it was rape.
Read the grand jury testimony instead of the thread, it is explicit and has already been linked to once but here it is again:
It isn’t a PDF you can copy and paste so I had to manually type this but here is what it says (it is under the heading “Victim 2” in the PDF):
If I had to guess, maybe part of the reason the GA (now known as McQueary) didn’t intervene is because both Sandusky and the Victim saw him. Most likely the victim wasn’t struggling or showing “obvious” signs of distress. Most likely because he had been victimized many, many times before and had tragically been conditioned to accept this abuse–this happens with real abuse victims who are subjected to serial rapes. I think that for someone like McQueary whose conception of rape is probably more in line with pop culture, he didn’t immediately process it because the boy wasn’t fighting and in fact had his hands up on the wall and seemed to just be passively taking it.
Of course I’m just guessing there and McQueary’s thoughts are impossible to know.
No idea why this showed up twice.
Has the child the GA walked in on been identified yet? If not, then his discription of the event is the only one we have. That means he had to know he walked in on anal rape, since he’s the only one who could give a description of the event.
How many more people are going to respond to this post before reading the rest of the thread?
You make a good point. If Sandusky had groomed the kid to the point where anal sex was an ongoing occurrance, then yes, it could have happened without excruciating pain like you suggest. As for the slapping souunds, who knows? Sandusky may have been actually raping the kid or merely going through the motions in a faux-playful way and trying to pass it off to the kid as teasing or rough housing. And you would think that if Sandusky had on on-going sexual relationship with the boy he wouldn’t have had to risk being seen by having sex with him in a school shower.
Again, I don’t know what actually happened. But I do think too many people in this thread have forgotten the fact that they don’t really know either.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you still confused about what the GA said he saw? There are at least two incidents, one involving a janitor observing Sandusky perform oral sex. That resulted in a big police report a 30+ page one that I do not believe has ever been released to the media, back in 1998. Ultimately Sandusky was not charged but it now seems very likely that lead to his being “retired” in 1999.
The Grand Jury is a legally constituted body that investigates facts (or at least listens while the prosecution submits facts), their report isn’t some “news report” or “random musings.” It is a summation of stuff the McQueary personally testified to before the Grand Jury. There is a reason we’re saying read the grand jury report. It is not based on third hand reminiscences, but the testimony of an eye witness. Further, the grand jury goes on to say they found McQueary very credible in his testimony. I’m sorry some people have gotten the facts mixed up, but let there be no doubt McQueary has said before a grand jury he saw Jerry Sandusky anally rape a child. That’s legal fact, now obviously it is up to a court of law to determine whether it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt the act actually occurred, but based on the best information we have now–that is what McQueary has testified to under oath.
WTF? This may be one of the most fucked up things I’ve ever read on this board. “An on-going sexual relationship”? With a 10 year old boy? “Going through the motions in a playful way”? Let’s not beat around the bush, this is not an “ongoing sexual relationship”, this is ongoing sexual abuse of a 10 year old. But, hey, as long as after your bizarre hand-waving you admit that you don’t actually know what happened. Jesus christ.
I had trouble getting to the end of the thread because so many of your posts (4 of them) kept repeating the wrong information and an equal or greater number of posts by others correcting you.
So what…McQueary is lying? It means nothing because you don’t think it works like that?
Your “guess” has problems with the actual testimony thus far.
Heaven forbid.
Though some people are going on the testimony that has been presented and you are just making shit up.
Because you’re an expert in anal intercourse? We’re supposed to give your “reasons” weight because of…go ahead and fill in a reason because I can’t think of a damn one.
Had. Joe Paterno “had” a reputation, and given what has been printed thus far there are more than enough reasons to call that reputation into question.
No, that is not what I’m saying. I am saying that I initially didn’t know the specifics, acknowledged that I didn’t know the specifics, and received about 6 replies giving me the specifics. At some point, I expected the “read the grand jury” posts to stop when they noticed that several other people had addressed the point already.
And that, to me, is sad. A brilliant career tarnished (rightfully so, in my opinion, if the allegations are true) at the end by the acceptance of, if not the actual cover-up of, heinous crimes.
Before everybody gets all up in my grill about that statement - I can find it sad that a brilliant career ends this way and at the same time find it revolting that children were sacrificed at the altar of football for the “good” of this program.
I didn’t post the incorrect information 4 times. Sorry, no.
Yes, I’m taking into account that McQueary is saying he reported anal rape. What I’m thinking is that Paterno and the other officials may not have believed at the time that McQueary actually saw what he thought he did, and therefore were not moved to act decisively on it. I do think that some effort should have been made to find out who the child was and see what he had to say, but I can see how the university would be reluctant to ruin a man’s professional and family life based upon what otherwise would be a he said/he said situation where it would be merely one man’s word against another.
And yes, I acknowledged to Martin Hyde before I saw your post that in the event the abuse had been occurring previously, the rape could have happened without the pain I described.
I just don’t get what this guy was doing with a 10 year old in the locker room anyway! It’s not like the Y, I don’t think there are any programs for 10-year olds at PS. Didn’t anyone notice this old fart taking a boy in the locker room and wonder “what’s up with that”?
I’m sure they wrote it off by thinking it had something to do with his charity work.
From the reports, there were a number of red flags that were either deliberately or unconsciously ignored.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would try to rape children in public. I can’t even grasp how fucked up that is.
Perhaps it’s because in posts 86, 92, and 96 you repeated the wrong information. and then in post #101, you admitted that you “weren’t certain”. All this despite several explicit corrections and directions to the correct information.