At this point, it’d be nice if we could just discuss the case itself, without the constant accusations of being Nancy Graces who are just trying to start a lynch mob.
SA, are you going to respond? Or did you realize that saying the police would do “nothing!” is incorrect and so you’re going to let it go?
I don’t recall saying that they “wouldn’t” do anything, which implies that they could take action if they wanted but for some reason chose not to. It would probably be more accurate to say that my position was that in light of no evidence other than McQueary’s statement, there wasn’t anthing they “could” do. In other words, they’d most likely have found themselves in the exact same situation as the police in the Colorado incident you cited. 
Ok, so you think they would have done something, but most likely it would not have resulted in much evidence, right?
So you agree they would have questioned Sandusky?
Why are we expending our energies here? It’s not like there’s any chance SA is going to suddenly show up and say “You’ve got a point. Which I would’ve heard if I hadn’t been so arrogant.” (I’d settle for “Har har. Jes’ kiddin’, Don’t tell me you guys fell for all that”.)
Now, this wouldn’t be a waste of time and bandwidth if we heard something like:
“Hey, gang, I really want to be a better person. And a big part of that is to be more humble. And learn from other people. Why don’t you tell me your perspective on this issue, so that I can amend my opinions based on a broader understanding. In fact, maybe I’ll just listen for a while … and learn. And try not to be so nit-pricky.”
Come to think of it, if anyone on this board said this, I’d have my faith in the human race reignited.
Hi gang! I want to be a better person. And a big part of that is to be humble. And-
You know what? I theory I’d like to be a better person who could take critism in stride and learn from other people. It’s just I’ve got this big 'ol ego in the way. 
Sorry, maybe someone else can restore your faith in humanity.
Hey, gang! You know, you’re right, I want to be a better person. You know, the kind who hews to facts and not the kind who jumps to conclusions and imaginings based on emotion and…
Oh, wait! I already am!
And you aren’t!
So, no sackcloth and ashes for me. (You guys would do well to consider them though.)
Or the one that ignores the actual reported facts, because they don’t jive with his image of his hero? The one who believes in “passing the buck”?
I still haven’t seen your response to this one SA.
Stay classy, dude.
I take a certain (but very grim and perverse) ironic pleasure in how the progenitor/endorser/suggester of “tickling, hugging, wrestling,” “lessons in showering,” “helping the boy up after he slipped,” has the gall to use the word “imaginings.”
Difference is, I’m not treating them as incontrovertible fact and demanding people’s careers be ended - or calling other posters perverts - because of them.
In other words, I know it when I’m only speculating.
I’ve said at least twice that they would question Sandusky. You really need to stop insisting I answer these little traps you try to set for me.
The huge difference is that Paterno’s and McQueary’s sworn and consistent testimony about “sexual contact” and “some form of intercourse,” bolstered by the thorough GJ investigation, are anything but speculation, whereas no one (other than the perjurers, who were indicted precisely for this reason) has testified to or suggested that what McQueary saw was or could have been perceived by Paterno to be only “tickling, hugging, wrestling, teaching to shower, helping the kid stand up after he slipped.”
I don’t set “traps”, I don’t play games. You clarified your position regarding whether the police would have investigated and I accepted that.
What I am doing is trying to methodically walk through your position and give you an honest opportunity to clarify. If you have a strong position, that shouldn’t be a problem.
This post is why I was asking, it seems to imply (note my use of the qualifying phrase “seems to imply”) that you think they would not question Sandusky:
So, this is what we have so far for SA’s position:
- Yes, the police would have investigated the alleged crime even without a victim
- The police would have questioned Sandusky
So, let’s continue with a few more questions (I think these should just require a simple yes or no): - Would the police have been satisfied to stop their investigation simply due to Sandusky’s denials?
- Would the police have attempted to determine who the child was?
2a) As part of that investigation, would the police have contacted 2nd mile?
2b) If they contacted 2nd mile, isn’t there a reasonable chance (note use of the phrase “reasonable chance”, meaning better than 50%) they would have determined if there was a 2nd mile child with Sandusky that night?
Details aside, the gist of your post here is that you are certain that “the perjurers” are lying. Why is this? GJ testimony and reports are not sacred. Are you unaware that a lot of people who are indicted by GJs are in fact innocent?
And even if you have some rationale for this, why do you expect that everyone else is required to share your opinion?
FWIW, my initial assumption was that Curley and Schultz were probably lying. But at this point, in light of subsequent developments, I’m (slightly) leaning against it. The only evidence against them is the word of McQueary, who seems to be something of a liar himself, and whose actions in the wake of the incident suggest a guy who was - at best - not taking a consistent and decisive position about it. In addition, the reported testimony of Dranov is also consistent with the notion that McQueary did not initially say he had seen sex abuse.
That’s in addition to the fact that it’s two guys against one, and the fact that they apparently reported it to Spanier, which would be risky if they were also engaging in a cover-up to something that McQueary could easily expose. (And there’s been no assertion that they attempted to squelch McQueary. Odd to just blindly rely on his continuing and puzzling silence.)
So as long as it’s just McQueary’s word against these two guys’ and the other evidence, I’m more inclined to think he’s the liar. But perhaps the prosecution has other evidence. I suppose the rest will come out, or if there’s a settlement then we’ll gauge the strength of the case by the terms. (If they plea bargain down to a slap on the wrist, then the prosecutors likely had little to go by.)
Of course, I could be wrong about all this. So could you. One of us is able to admit it.
One of the most tragic things about child sexual abuse is that the victims are so reluctant to come forward, which allows the abuse to continue unchecked, often for years. The primary reason that victims do not tell is because they are ashamed and fear they will not be believed.
In cases like this one, there is often a large group of supporters that profess the alleged perpetrator could not possibly have committed the crime. This reinforces the victim’s perception that they are powerless to come forward. Sometimes the victim believes that it is he who will be in trouble for somehow causing their own abuse, and with all of these people supporting the perpetrator, who will believe them?
For boys, there are additional factors within our society that play a large part as to why they don’t tell. The first is that boys should not be victims. Somehow they should have had the power to keep the abuse from happening. You often hear little boys say; “I’d never let anyone do that to me!”. Society’s expectation is that boys somehow will protect themselves, even when they are being manipulated or tricked by an adult. Second is the idea that if a boy is sexually abused by an adult male, that the boy is a homosexual. Although this is not true it often results in the male victim becoming further stigmatized.
This case is unique in that there was an EYE WITNESS to the sexual abuse as well as MULTIPLE VICTIMS to corroborate the allegations. Yet there are still people, presumably adults, who choose to think these victims are making it all up. What a sad state of affairs.
Who are these people? Anyone in this thread? Or are you complaining about the guy’s lawyer?
I think you’re going a bit far there.
You know, I was thinking the other day as I drifted off to sleep that in addition to false accusations in custody cases, I should have mentioned McMartin/“recovered memory”/Satanic ritual abuse as the additional class, I’m sorry I didn’t make that edit/follow-up. What all those cases had in common was a lack of consistent and credible testimony (I think at one point in McMartin the moronic recovered-memory experts cajoled hapless kids into saying they’d witnessed human sacrifices), AND as Enola Gay said consistent adult eyewitness testimony of creepy and felonious sexual conduct.
But thanks for pointing out my omission on the day care hysteria.