He did what the law required. And how could he “make it stop”? Is it your impression that Sandusky was still raping the boy the next morning while McQueary was meeting with Paterno?
The incident was over. There was nothing for him to stop.
You don’t know of any other incidents. You only know of allegations. You also don’t know that Paterno heard of them, or what he heard if he did. It would be necessary to know both before an assessment can be made as to what Paterno should have done.
I don’t have any particular belief as to what Paterno is imagined to have known, or when he is imagined to have known it. I prefer to wait until the facts are out.
On the other hand, we have a considerable number of people in Hollywood who do know for a fact about kids being raped by adults and doing nothing about it, and you don’t seem to be thinking about them at all. I would expect that you and Kolga, Huerta88, et al., would all be expressing concern about how many children had been raped while these people have been keeping quiet, but for some reason none of you seem to have given it an ounce of thought.
Curious, that…
“Paterno must have known something, and he did nothing!” SDMB: “Shriek!!!”
“Known insiders in Hollywood definitely knew something, and they did nothing!” SDMB: “Zzzzzz…”
So what I want to know is, why are you people justified in going ballistic over what you only think you know about Paterno, while utterly ignoring what is definitely known about pedophilic goings-on in Hollywood, which have gone on for a much longer period of time and affected a much larger number of children?
I guess I’ll be the next person to make this mistake: Starving Artist, in the Penn State case there are specific allegations made against one person who is accused of abusing specific children (plus a few others who either lied about what they or didn’t do much to stop it). The Hollywood thing has no grounding in facts. It could be true or it could be an urban legend. Nobody’s filed a complaint as a far as I know; nobody has named an alleged perpetrator, and nobody has produced evidence. It’s hard to be a criminal case OR a Pitting on that.
[Moderating]
No, if that were the case, you’d recall that you were specifically instructed to stop hijacking threads with your bizarre political persecution complex. That instruction still stands. Do not continue this line of conversation.
That goes for the rest of you, too, of course.
[/Moderating]
No complaints have been filed about Paterno either and look at what he’s come in for!
There is far more substantive information as to what is known about what has been going on in Hollywood than there is about what Joe Paterno knew before or since the alleged shower rape scene, what he did accordingly, and what his motivations were.
And where Paterno is concerned there is not one ounce of evidence to any of it! It’s all imagined…every bit of it!
And yet at least two people (Corey Feldman and Paul Peterson) have professed knowledge of the Hollywood pedophile casting couch, with Feldman having been a victim himself. Much outrage has been expressed in this thread over the harm done to the children Sandusky has abused, so why is there not similar outrage over the fate of the kids who’ve been abused in Hollywood while everyone has been keeping their mouths shut and looking the other way? If there was 1/10th the passion and outrage brought to bear on what has been going on in Hollywood as there has been about Paterno, a great deal would known about what has been going on there. But it hasn’t and there isn’t! Why aren’t Feldman and Peterson’s feet being held to the fire so no more kids will be raped? Why isn’t the actress from Little House on the Prairie being quizzed by the police to see what she knew about sex abuse of the Coreys? And since according to many of the posters to this thread child sex abuse trumps all, why aren’t demands being made that the people who’ve told reporters about these practices aren’t being hauled in for questioning? Yet everyone in Hollywood seems to feel perfectly comfortable talking about how much of it they know is going on, with no apparent fear of career or legal consequences. Why is that?
For Chrisakes SA, get a clue instead of getting warned and/or banned.
If there is something to the Feldman, Peterson thing then let them file a complaint. Let charges be brought. Have a police investigation. Have grand jury testimony. Have material witnesses that have gone on record with the Grand Jury.
I will personally volunteer to be the one to Pit them if anything substantive comes of such an investigation.
The whole thing broke because of the charges that were filed against Sandusky. It’s not based on innuendo, it’s based on sworn grand jury testimony. Since then, more charges have been filed and more witnesses have come forward.
Get a clue. This isn’t about your fantasy of political martyrdom.
Mods: I’ve had my dust-ups with you but in this case I admire your restraint and think you stepped in very appropriately.
He could have and should have called the cops. He did not. As has been explained to you enough times that someone without a cognitive deficit would grasp.
Everyone who pays attention to the news does, beyond *reasonable *doubt. Yours is not reasonable.
On the other hand, we have a considerable number of people in Hollywood who do know for a fact about kids being raped by adults and doing nothing about it, and you don’t seem to be thinking about them at all.
[/quote]
If you want to start a thread deploring that, and giving the reasons we “know” about that (in a way we* don’t* “know” about Paterno), go right ahead. This thread is about Penn State. Well, actually, lately it’s only been about laughing at you - there’s nothing left for reality-connected persons to discuss about the Penn State situation.
I am at a complete and utter loss to understand all this “political martyrdom” stuff. I am defending a man whom I’ve known for decades to be of outstanding moral character and integrity who has been assailed mercilessly on this board for things he has not remotely been proven to have done.
Further, it was only after Kolga’s crack about my defending Paterno out of politics because he’s ‘an old conservative white guy’ that I even began to look at this subject as being political, and that was only a day or two ago. Then when the Hollywood story began to break and nobody around here was saying anything about it, it became even more clear to me that politics may well be playing a roll in the castigation that Paterno has been coming in for. So, a.) I didn’t bring politics into the thread, that was done by Kolga and whoever the guy was upthread who accused me of supporting Paterno because he was close with Bush, neither of whom drew a word of moderation for hijacking the thread; and b.) my participation in this thread has had nothing to do with some imaginary “political martyrdom.” Rather it has to do with questioning the motives - and therefore the veracity - of the attacks upon Joe Paterno.
[Moderating]
Then I’m sure you’ll appreciate it when I point out that I told everyone to drop that hijack. “Everyone” includes you.
Since you brought the issue up after I’d told people to drop it, I’m going to let Starving Artist’s last post slide. But there aren’t any more second chances. Next person who brings up SA’s Hollywood pedo crap again gets a warning, regardless of which side they’re arguing.
Anyone who has a problem with this ruling (including “So and so did it first!”) can take it to ATMB.
[/Moderating]
So, to get back on topic, what does it mean that Sandusky decided to waive his preliminary hearing? Would he have been testified against? If so, how is it fair to skip out on it, and why does the accused have the right to waive it?
Your questions are intertwined, as are my answers.
It means that Sandusky (and/or his lawyer) decided that the hearing was a foregone conclusion and that the bad publicity would have outweighed anything they could have provided. Yes, he would have been testified against. Yes, it’s absolutely fair for him to waive it; it would have been a simple determination of whether there was enough evidence against him to proceed to trial. You could as well ask if it’s fair for a defendant to plead guilty.
I agree with Frank, but I also think that it’s an indication that his lawyer is incompetent or is ACTING incompetent, and that Sandusky may be angling for grounds for appeals after the guilty verdict that keep him out of jail until he dies. Preliminary hearings are a good opportunity for the defense to hear the evidence that will be presented, so they can start to prepare their defense for trial. Sure, it’s fair for him to waive it, but it gives up an opportunity to start to prepare a defensive strategy.
IANAL, have a stepfather, brother, uncle, ex-husband, three best-friends, and two ex-boyfriends who are lawyers, and a mother who was a paralegal, but none of them practiced in this area and none of them practiced in Pennsylvania, so I look forward to Bricker coming in and tell me how I’m wrong for this jurisdiction.
I was watching the news earlier and apparently their newest tactic is accusing the victims of conspiring against Sandusky. Because see, they all knew each other. :rolleyes: (Yeah, because it’s not like they didn’t go to that camp together!)
I’ll look up a site in the morning, I’m logging off now. It’s bedtime!
The GJ indictment here was unusually thorough and detailed (disclaimer: I’ve not read a lot of Pennsylvania indictments, but that thing was a tome). And the prosecution’s case is not exactly complex (“he raped boys.”). Not sure how much incremental strategic edge you’d get from a hearing.
Coupled with the widespread publicity threatening to further taint the entire state’s jury pool, and by Sandusky’s unpredictable speaking style (he wouldn’t have to say much other than yes or no at the hearing, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t blurt something damaging), I wasn’t shocked by the decision to waive.
It makes sense! Some parts of children are really dirty, and you gotta really dig in there and scrub away. And I’m sure a lathered up penis is a terrific cleaning implement for some of those hard to reach areas.
I imagine this will all come out in depositions and discovery. For the most part, media legal eagle commenters tended to agree with the decision to waive the hearing.
The real question is why he waited until the last second to do this. My guess is that he was trying to get a sense of whether and/or to what extent the prosecution was bluffing, IOW whether the witnesses were actually prepared to go forward with it.
This seems to be a common lawyer tactic, in high profile cases. Instead of the defendant making claims that he can be held to at trial, you get the lawyers to toss out suggestions and see if any of them take. If it’s widely scoffed at, then you never bring it up at trial and no one else can either.