Actually there are (e.g. McMartin Preschool)* which is why a credible EYE WITNESS changes everything in this case.
*there are several such cases that I am aware of, though they all involve much younger children and reprehensible interviewing techniques.
When people post things like:
[QUOTE=]
it’s possible that Sandusky didn’t do anything.
[/QUOTE]
and:
[QUOTE=]
…whatever Sandusky had been doing was not serious enough to warrant legal action. People these days are far too quick to see evil intent where none exists. As a grown man these days you can’t even look smilingly and amusedly at a little kid in a place as big as a friggin’ Walmart people looking at you like a pedophile. Kids are being raised to be fearful of men, and men are falling under suspicion for all sorts of bogus reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming the author of such posts was telling the truth when he said he has read the indictment, then one can only conclude that he believes the victims who testified before the grand jury are either mistaken or lying.
It’s not odd at all if you see their actions, all the way up to the president, as being directed at protecting the public image of the university and the football program rather than at protecting the little boys. McQ in particular had no career prospects outside of it (and now those are gone too, as for are all the others you named), so it should not be surprising at all that he protected his own future at the boys’ expense as well.
Actually it changes very little. Not only is McQueary unsure of exactly what it was that was going on (i.e., it might have been rape; it might have been non-rape assault; it might have been something skeevy but not illegal; and it might have been something innocent), but all his account does is create he said/he said situation that is absolutely worthless on its own without some sort of substantiation.
I’m very glad that you chose to edit my post as you did in order to make it seem that I was declaring Sandusky to be innocent, when in reality I was merely speculating. Ypu deliberately omitted the preceeding part of that post to create what was in effect a lie about what I said. Not really very kosher of you, old boy. I can only suggest that the reader to whom honesty and integrity are important utterly ignore anything you have to say from this point on, as, unsurpringly, given the company you’re keeping in this thread, you’ve proven yourself utterly lacking in both.
You’re making stuff up again. The only thing McQ. said he was “uncertain” about was during the cross examination a couple of weeks ago when Sandusky’s lawyer elicited the largely meaningless “admission” that McQ. was not sure there was actual penetration (which makes sense because he was seeing them from behind). In that same testimony he said he was sure he saw “some form of intercourse” and “extreme sexual contact that was way over the line,” and that he reported the same to Paterno and Schultz/Casey. Oh, and he “admitted” that out of delicacy for Paterno he did not use the words “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” in talking to JP. This does not make him “unsure” of what he saw and heard (sex sounds, slapping, and a naked old man right behind a naked kid who has his hands braced on the wall. in what the witness said clearly was “some sort of intercourse” from what he thought). Penetration (which from that description and from the other victims’ testimony that Sandusky BF’d them, almost certainly was in fact occurring) is not the threshold for either criminal sexual assault on a minor, or for the moral need to report same as much as you can. So as to get “substantiation,” you know. McQ. has never, as far as I know, “admitted” that he was “unsure” whether Sandusky was in a position with his naked genitals in direct proximity or contact with the boy’s buttocks. Read the statutue – that alone rules out any “innocent” or even “skeevy but not illegal.” Under both the sexual assault statute and the indecent exposure statute, there was a clear prima facie case of a crime, and no innocent or “merely skeevy” explanation at all. You aren’t allowed to have your naked cock next to a naked boy’s ass. Ever. Period. Please stop suggesting that sometimes someone could do this and think or be perceived that he was behaving lawfully.
Huerta, 1) McQueary did not say “some form” of intercourse when talking to Paterno; and 2) the mere fact that he said “some form” of intercourse means he’s unsure of what he saw, up to and including whether it was intercourse at all.
RaftPeople, nah, I’ve spent enough time going over what I’ve already said with you. I’m happy to let what I’ve already said stand on its own.
Well, we’re trying to make sense of the contradictory things you’ve said.
If I relied on what you’ve said previously, then my understanding of your position would be:
Police would do “nothing!”
Police wouldn’t question Sandusky
But now that we’ve clarified, I correctly understand your position to be:
Police would do something
Police would question Sandusky
So, why are you so worried about continuing to clarify what you’ve said? I haven’t put any words in your mouth, I’ve paraphrased your position honestly to make sure we are on the same page as we go.
I’m not worried about anything, I just don’t want to get endlessly bogged down in trivial, hyper-literal discussions of what I’ve said, which is obviously where you’re headed with quibbles over words like “insist,” “wouldn’t” vs. “couldn’t,” and your contention that I said or implied that the police wouldn’t question Sandusky when I clearly said at least a couple of times that they most likely would have with the result that Sandusky almost certainly would have denied that anything had happened.
Plus my computer is on the blink and I’m having to post via my iPod touch, which doesn’t lend itself to lengthy exposition anyway.
So WHAT if he denies it? Do you think the police stop interrogations because a suspect issues a denial? Jesus Christ, nobody’d EVER get convicted in this country if that were the case!
Are you implying that McQueary committed perjury then?
There are two things you are saying here that make no sense.
The first is that there is no need to report or investigate based on eye witness testimony if you believe the accused will most likely deny it. That isn’t how investigations work.
The second is that Sandusky would have even been able to deny anything happened. He was seen by a very reliable witness, someone who knew him and had every reason to “forget” what he had seen. There were almost certainly other people who knew who Sandusky was with that day, or knew who he was often with during that time frame. It is far more likely that he would have admitted to hugging in the shower (as he had admitted before) but denied anything further.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, Sandusky continued to run overnight football camps for little kids on a Penn State campus, with the assistance of other Penn State related coaches. He was still always around the team. He continued to bring kids to Penn State practices. He continued to use Second Mile events at Penn State to find new victims. Certain people, including Paterno, saw this and did nothing. Did not follow up, did not report what they were told to police. I realize you are obligated, by the time you have put in, to defend this indefinitely, but I hope that secretly you can admit this was not the best moral decision.
Also consider that Sandusky did in fact have his locker room keys taken away. Penn State access is not a legal right. There was no need to give him a high level of continued access.
I haven’t said any such thing. What I have said is all over this thread and freely available to. I’m getting tired of having to argue with people over what I’ve said, especially since what I have said is right there in black and white.
Exactly. And I’ve said as much myself. Remember when I said that Sandusky could have claimed that he didn’t know what McQueary thought he saw but that nothing untoward had happened. And it’s almost certain that Sandusky would have told the kid to claim nothing had happened. So even if your suppositions are correct and the identity of the kid could be pinned down, it is still far from a slam dunk that the police could have proven - or even have found out - what had actually happened.
Let me state this in no uncertain terms: Paterno had no idea of the real nature of what Sandusky had been suspected of in these cases. We have seen in this very thread how readily people extrapolate sex abuse from all sorts of things that may very well have nothing to do with sex at all. So even if we assume that all your assumptions are correct and Paterno has heard speculation that Sandusky was misbehaving with children, we have no way of know how seriously he took them, especially since university investigations had resulted in no charges against Sandusky. And finally - and this is what I want to be very clear about - it wasn’t Paterno’s job to ride heard over how the university dealt with Sandusky. It was not Paterno’s responsibility either morally or in practice to attempt to override the decisions made by the university who had looked into the allegations and found nothing worthy of criminal charges.
Great, because I don’t want to do that either, let’s just focus on major points.
You think it’s ok that Paterno didn’t call the police because the police would have investigated but probably would have found nothing, right?
So, instead, Paterno should report it to administrators (which is correct) because…and I will admit it gets a little fuzzy here…because…uh…they report it to the police.
Uh, wait a second - if the reason to not report it to the police is because the investigation will be so difficult, but the administrators are supposed to report it to the police so the police can investigate but it will still be so tough that probably nothing will happen, then why report it to anyone? - that doesn’t make any sense.
Here is the critical question:
If the police really won’t be able to do anything because Sandusky will just deny it, then why should the administrators report it to the police?
Wrong. I merely speculated when I first brought it up that it probably never occurred to Paterno to call the police because he really didn’t have much to tell them. Remember the little faux-telephone call scenario? That describes my thinking on it perfectly.
No. Paterno should report it to the administrative officials because as a mandatory reporter of suspected canpus crime that is what he’s supposed to do and what he is bound by law to do.
No, the administrators are not necessarily supposed to report it to the police. Their job is to investigate and determine whether any laws were broken. And they have at their disposal a fully-empowered 256 strong police force of their own with which to conduct investigations of alleged campus wrongdoing. I don’t know what the criteria is as far as when they should notify the police, but I would imagine it is probably at the point when evidence is discovered sufficient to have the suspect jailed pending filing of charges. I don’t know that Penn State ever used or was required to use the municipal police to conduct investigations on campus.
The scene: Coach Paterno’s office - Grad Student McQueary rushes in, looking perturbed.
McQ: Coach Paterno, I … I … I just, …I’m a little …
JoPa: Calm down, son. You look like you’ve seen ghost. Take a deep breath and tell me what’s going on.
McQ: Well, I just got back from the field house, and I walked in on Coach Sandusky in the showers. He had a little boy in there with him.
JoPa: A little boy?
McQ: Yes. And coach … they were both naked and … and I’m pretty sure he was fondling him or, I don’t know … coach, I heard these slapping noises, and I saw Coach Sandusky grabbing the kid from behind. Coach. I’m really freaked out. I don’t know what to do.
JoPa: Alright. I understand. This must be dificult for you. But first … are you sure he wasn’t just tickling the boy, because that would probably be totally okay for him to be doing in a deserted shower room at night naked with a 10 year old boy.
McQ: Um … huh?
JoPa: Never you mind. I’ll tell my boss about it. Everything will be fine.
See post #1862. Your second quote was about Paterno, not Sandusky. (I couldn’t find your first quote.)
In addition, the McQueary incident did not involve a victim making any claims. Your assertion was that people believe the “victims are making it all up”. Again, who was this a reference to?
No, it is odd even in light of that.
Many people have found McQueary’s passivity to be very puzzling in light of his testimony. If McQueary told these guys what he told the GJ, then they would have been simply relying on McQueary doing something that most people would not assume he would do, and there would be serious consequences for them if this reliance turned out to be misplaced. That’s odd.
I mean, if these guys leaned on McQueary and pressured him to cover it up you could say they relied on this pressure working. That’s how a lot of cover-ups work. But there’s been no reports of this happening, and I assume McQueary would have mentioned this to the GJ and/or to the court if this was part of his story. The pro-McQueary version requires believing that these two guys simply decided to ignore the possibility that McQueary’s story about a kid being raped on campus and themselves ignoring it would get out, despite McQueary’s ongoing presence on campus, despite JP knowing about the incident, and despite themselves having informed Spanier about it. I think that’s strange.
But possible. Strange things happen. Maybe these guys were full of hubris, or were just short-sighted morons. But the simpler, more straightforward scenario is they genuinely did not believe they were covering up for a rape (or serious sex abuse). And especially if that’s being added to the report that other testimony (Dranov) says that McQueary did not at the time specify that there had been child abuse, and the fact that McQueary’s actions at the time and in future years were inconsistent with a guy who believed he had seen a rape - I think McQueary is the weaker link here.
Again - this could be wrong. I wouldn’t want to bet my house on this, but if I had to that’s which side my bet is on.