Milkman delivers

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:28 PM) So it seems the Pennsylvania State's Attorney is asking similar questions as some of us in this thread: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colle...00.story?page=2 Probably just all us lawyers taking the wrong side (even though they are the Prosecutors). What are you talking about there? All of us here were under the impression that everyone involved had been fired. I would imagine that everyone also just assumed that they were not receiving paychecks still.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 07:02 PM) Fair enough. And I hope you got the PM I sent earlier.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:53 PM) Milk, I don't deny the entire thing is one big clusterf*** of failings on the part of multiple people within multiple different organizations, including the football program, the University, the campus police, the local police, the DA, the charity, and on and on and on. I guess I just don't find Paterno to be particularly high up on that list, considering the circumstances. Everyone can disagree with me as much as they want. I really don't have the time, nor the strength to argue about it anymore. I've already wasted the entire day. I've wasted two days on this I agree that Paterno isn't at the top of the list, but he's on there. The VP or whatever under whose auspices the police fall is higher up there, but I don't think the police can be to blame from what we know so far. Police can do their jobs to perfection and still not have enough for a case, and I see how that can easily be the case for the 1998 incident. They had something, but not anything strong enough to take it to court or at least to get the DA to allow it to get to court. They had an incident where a man admitted that he showered in an open locker shower and bear hugged a child. It's weird, but I seriously doubt it was enough to take to court, especially since the child said that nothing else happened, the man apologized for it, his reputation, etc. And if they continued to keep tabs on him, he very easily could have just waited long enough between molestations that the cops had no choice but to give up the investigation.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:40 PM) Again, such a low standard for the police, and yet this is exactly what you expect the football coach to do... Are you admitting that they may have kept tabs on him for a little while after the initial investigation? If they did this and he kept clean for that period of time, there would be no cause to continue to do so. Do you want them to have a Big Brother system constantly watching him? Perhaps the technology they used in Minority Report?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:38 PM) How many other incidents were there besides the 2002 incident? How many other victims were there, Milk? Could they have not done some detective work here? Could they have not interviewed some of the children he was in contact with? Just because the incident in 2002 was not reported by PSU, does not mean that they couldn't have bothered to investigate the guy further, especially considering he was well known in the community to work with children. How can you have such a low standard of responsibility for the police, who actually exist for this sort of thing, and such a high standard of responsibility for a football coach, who's job it was to win football games? First of all, I hardly think "calling the police" or "ensuring that the police are called" is a very high standard to hold anyone to. Now, back to the investigation. They seemingly found out that the initial child that brought suspicion was not raped. According to the Grand Jury report (which I'm still not sure you've read), he had plenty of children under his care at various times. It is quite possible that they interviewed other children and he happened not to have molested those ones. It seems that he would pick a child from each generation of the charity's members and molest that child, with some occasional overlap. So, perhaps this was his prey for that current time and therefore none of the other children had anything to tell them. And then let's remember that many children don't come forward with their allegations. And to drive this point home again, they did not find out that he raped the child in 1998. He never did. So why would they have this incredibly in-depth investigation when it was already decided that nothing happened here?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) The same way they actually found out about the crime, I assume with an investigation. The real question is if Sandusky raped so many kids, how did the 1998 investigation come up completely empty? Because he didn't rape the kid they were investigating the incident for?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) I believe they did report it, which was why the DA knew of it. The point is, the DA did not prosecute him. Sometimes a case is not there, legally, for whatever reason. But there was plenty of evidence here for them to have continued to investigate. Seems as if they did thoroughly investigate it, they would have caught him fairly easily. The 1998 incident was reported, which is the shower bear hug. This whole thing seems to stem from the fact that the 2002 raping went unreported. The DA did not prosecute the 1998 case for probably any number of the reasons I already put out there. And how long would you expect an investigation to continue? They looked into it, heard his story admitting that he showered with the boy, and the DA probably decided that it was too weak. Do they follow Sandusky for the rest of his life? A few weeks? Maybe they followed him for a couple of months and he didn't rape a child in that span, so the case was dropped.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:30 PM) So the police can't prosecute a crime unless someone comes to the police department and tells them about it? Oh boy. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW ABOUT THE INCIDENT IN 2002 IF THE HIGHER UPS AT PSU DIDN'T INFORM THEM? That's what I'm asking.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) Milk, come on. He said "I wish I was dead." It was clear that he knew he was guilty of a heinous crime, and he vocalized that. At the very least, the campus police should have reported this to the local and state authorities and they should have been interviewing all kinds of children and parents that were involved with this guy through charitable functions, etc. Had they done that, they would have had kids stepping forward, either to their parents, or to the authorities, and the guy would have been stopped. You've never heard someone say "I wish I were dead" because they're so embarrassed at themselves? That could easily be construed as what he was saying to a person listening in. And we don't know that the campus police didn't report this to the local or state authorities, or whether or not it would even seem necessary after such a seemingly (at the time) innocuous incident.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) But they should have been! It's called "policework." Joe Paterno is not a police. His job does not include policework. He is a football coach. Thus the difference in culpability. How would they if they weren't told about the situation?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) @BreakingNewsBreaking News NBC News reports Joe Paterno has hired a prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer to represent him in the Penn State sex abuse case Sounds like he has good reason to believe he will be taken to court. I'd imagine that means he's a little more guilty than some would like to contend.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:18 PM) Yeah, sounds like this was just an old man showering with a kid in the area. Seriously, you cannot understand how it can be perceived as simply that? If a grown man showers in the same room as a child and a mother confronts the man afterwards about it, I think it's highly likely that the man would apologize and feel really bad about exposing a child to that. Granted, this is weirder because he bear hugged the kid, too, but an apology can easily be seen as him regretting a faux pas and not apologizing for the intent to rape the child.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) Its a breakdown of the entire system, from Paterno to the president at PSU, the DA and whatever authorities were notified. Schultz wasnt enough as all he did was oversee the budget of the police. This is probably why as more rocks are overturned, there will be more information that condemns PSU as well as the LOCAL legal system. The FBI will figure this out, guarantee it. You're lumping together two separate incidents here, I think. I don't think the DA or police were involved at all after 1998.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:14 PM) No, I have claimed we can't know what Paterno did behind the scenes at PSU. You're getting me confused with other posters. The Police heard him confess, and wish he was dead. At the very least, don't you think this is probably cause to follow this guy around a bit? Instead, you're putting this duty of enforcement on Paterno instead of the organization which is publicly funded to enforce the law. Actually, I said I'd keep an eye on him. And who's to say that they didn't follow him around a bit and he just didn't molest any children in that time? And we can't know (yet) what Paterno did behind the scenes with 100% accuracy, but we also can't know that the police knew something was up. The police heard him confess that he showered with a child and hugged him. What could that have gotten them if they brought that to court? Would a judge or jury decide that that was rape and throw him in jail? Or would they probably just decide that, considering his sterling history, that it was just some strange mistake? Probably that second one because the DA seemed to think that it was so weak that he didn't even bother to take it to court. Keep in mind that he did not sexually abuse that specific kid either. So, it wouldn't have led to that kid admitting abuse. The kid even said he didn't think anything of the situation until he was older. I honestly can see why the DA decided not to take it to court because it wouldn't have accomplished a thing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) I haven't read the whole thread, but has there been any explanation how McQueary is still on the PSU staff? Obviously Paterno should have done more, but McQueary actually witnessed it and did nothing more than Paterno did. A sick situation. Once this guy hits the big house, the convicts will give him what he deserves. The page before this. It says that McQueary has now been fired.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:05 PM) Uh oh, holier than thou pops back up. It funny how only he can think independently, the rest of us are sheep. Well us and Brent Bielema Apparently McQueary is done at PSU, should be announced tomorrow. Perfect!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) It really doesn't matter how aroused Sandusky was. What matters is he inappropriately touched the kid, and he admitted to doing so. And then he says he wishes he could die for it. Well, if that doesn't reflect how wrong the situation was, and how wrong he knew it was, then I don't know what does. It was pretty clear to the police what was going on here. No, this is bulls***. You have claimed several times that we can't "know" what was said, what people thought happened, etc. Now you're saying emphatically that the police knew there was more to this story than a shower and bear hug?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:58 PM) Ugh. To give the police a pass here, but to condemn Paterno...I just can't understand this. One has the sole duty to prevent this sort of thing, the other is a football coach. They both made the same error. Yet they were in drastically different positions to act. Thus the difference in culpability. They heard two entirely different things. One heard that a guy with no prior record whatsoever showered in a gym locker room with a kid and bear hugged him. The other heard that the guy who previously had a questionable record buttf***ed a child. I bet if the cops were told about the assrape, they would have been right on Sandusky immediately.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) So you can see why the police wouldnt investigate further into something weird, but you cant see why Joe Paterno wouldnt further investigate into something weird? Its become that Paterno should have done more than the police at this point, who are trained to identify this type of stuff. And Id like to say its been a pleasure to read Jenks and Iamshack. I know Milkman wants to lump us together, but the reality is that there are many times we have not agreed. Thats what happens when you think independently as opposed to believing what you read in the newspaper. Its so easy to just blindly believe. Oh, and shove your condescension up your ass.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) So you can see why the police wouldnt investigate further into something weird, but you cant see why Joe Paterno wouldnt further investigate into something weird? Its become that Paterno should have done more than the police at this point, who are trained to identify this type of stuff. And Id like to say its been a pleasure to read Jenks and Iamshack. I know Milkman wants to lump us together, but the reality is that there are many times we have not agreed. Thats what happens when you think independently as opposed to believing what you read in the newspaper. Its so easy to just blindly believe. If you believe that Paterno was only told that "something weird" happened and not the graphic detail with which McQueary claims to have explained the situation to both Paterno and Curley, which again, was found to be highly credible by the Grand Jury (which is a dog and pony show that can't be relied upon for credible information).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) Ah ok. Outside of the GJ report there are also another 10 or so victims that came forward, I am hoping we can hear their stories soon as well. There's so many that it all got kind of mashed up. Either way, I can fairly easily see why the police wouldn't go further with that incident. Yes, it's very weird and when taken with everything else he's been found to have done since, it's clear that he would have continued on to molest that child if the mother allowed him access after that initial encounter. You're dealing with a guy with no priors, highly respected, started a foundation that would suggest the exact opposite of a pedophile, and openly admitted that he made a mistake that he feels so bad about that he wished himself dead. In that situation, I'd maybe want to keep an eye on that guy for a little while, but I doubt I'd run him in.

QUOTE (Cali @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:06 PM) Her? Is there a picture in the above post that's just not loading? Otherwise, I don't get what you're saying.

OK, I found it. It was Victim #6 and it's on page 19. That was not the one with the erection. It's the one where the boy admits that he only realized that it was inappropriate when he was older. No rape with that one.

Why the f*** won't the search bar in the PDF find anything? That would make this much easier.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) Wasnt that the kid who he bear hugged with a boner? I'd have to go back to read the report again. I'm fairly positive he's the one he picked up, but not sure if it's the same one where he had an erection.